Greg Kroah-Hartman
2019-Oct-17 20:28 UTC
[PATCH RFC 3/3] vhost, kcov: collect coverage from vhost_worker
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 09:00:18PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote:> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 8:18 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman > <gregkh at linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 07:44:15PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote: > > > This patch adds kcov_remote_start/kcov_remote_stop annotations to the > > > vhost_worker function, which is responsible for processing vhost works. > > > Since vhost_worker is spawned when a vhost device instance is created, > > > the common kcov handle is used for kcov_remote_start/stop annotations. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl at google.com> > > > --- > > > drivers/vhost/vhost.c | 15 +++++++++++++++ > > > drivers/vhost/vhost.h | 3 +++ > > > 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c > > > index 36ca2cf419bf..71a349f6b352 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c > > > +++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c > > > @@ -357,7 +357,13 @@ static int vhost_worker(void *data) > > > llist_for_each_entry_safe(work, work_next, node, node) { > > > clear_bit(VHOST_WORK_QUEUED, &work->flags); > > > __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING); > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_KCOV > > > + kcov_remote_start(dev->kcov_handle); > > > +#endif > > > > Shouldn't you hide these #ifdefs in a .h file? This is not a "normal" > > kernel coding style at all. > > Well, if it's acceptable to add a kcov_handle field into vhost_dev > even when CONFIG_KCOV is not enabled, then we can get rid of those > #ifdefs.It should be, it's not a big deal and there's not a ton of those structures around that one more field is going to hurt anything... thanks, greg k-h