[PATCH v2 2/9] iommupt/kunit: Skip test configs without supported features
Pranjal Shrivastava
praan at google.com
Mon Sep 28 16:16:25 PDT 2026
On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 05:09:18PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> Some of the tests configs can test features we don't currently enable,
> like TTBR1 on ARMv8. Instead of blowing up, skip the test. When
> CONFIG_DEBUG_GENERIC_PT is set all features are force enabled during
> the build so everything can be tested. That is the normal mode for the
> kunit.py runner.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg at nvidia.com>
> ---
> drivers/iommu/generic_pt/kunit_iommu.h | 10 ++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/generic_pt/kunit_iommu.h b/drivers/iommu/generic_pt/kunit_iommu.h
> index 79d7f9c8e7868f..558e161eacb05f 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/generic_pt/kunit_iommu.h
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/generic_pt/kunit_iommu.h
> @@ -134,6 +134,16 @@ static int pt_kunit_priv_init(struct kunit *test, struct kunit_iommu_priv *priv)
>
> #ifdef kunit_fmt_cfgs
> priv->cfg = kunit_fmt_cfgs[((uintptr_t)test->param_value) - 1];
> + /*
> + * Without CONFIG_DEBUG_GENERIC_PT only the format's compiled-in
> + * PT_SUPPORTED_FEATURES are available, so cfgs requesting bits outside
> + * that set cannot be tested.
> + */
> + if (priv->cfg.common.features & ~KUNIT_PT_SUPPORTED_FEATURES)
> + kunit_skip(
> + test,
> + "cfg requires features not built into this format (enable CONFIG_DEBUG_GENERIC_PT)");
> +
I can't quite build this as I can't find this macro:
drivers/iommu/generic_pt/fmt/../kunit_iommu.h:129:35: error: use of undeclared identifier 'KUNIT_PT_SUPPORTED_FEATURES'
129 | if (priv->cfg.common.features & ~KUNIT_PT_SUPPORTED_FEATURES)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CC drivers/tty/tty_port.o
CC drivers/clk/clk-fixed-factor.o
AS arch/arm64/lib/strrchr.o
1 error generated.
make[5]: *** [drivers/iommu/generic_pt/fmt/Makefile:30: drivers/iommu/generic_pt/fmt/kunit_iommu_armv8.o] Error 1
make[4]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:551: drivers/iommu/generic_pt/fmt] Error 2
Am I missing a series it was defined in? Can't find anything on lore,
but I did find a commit on your github [1] that is supposed to preclude
this, I guess?
With that dependence defined/linked in the cover letter:
Reviewed-by: Pranjal Shrivastava <praan at google.com>
Thanks,
Praan
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list