[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC v2 00/14] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework
Hi Brendan,

On 10/23/2018 05:57 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> This patch set proposes KUnit, a lightweight unit testing and mocking
> framework for the Linux kernel.
> Unlike Autotest and kselftest, KUnit is a true unit testing framework;
> it does not require installing the kernel on a test machine or in a VM
> and does not require tests to be written in userspace running on a host
> kernel. Additionally, KUnit is fast: From invocation to completion KUnit
> can run several dozen tests in under a second. Currently, the entire
> KUnit test suite for KUnit runs in under a second from the initial
> invocation (build time excluded).
> KUnit is heavily inspired by JUnit, Python's unittest.mock, and
> Googletest/Googlemock for C++. KUnit provides facilities for defining
> unit test cases, grouping related test cases into test suites, providing
> common infrastructure for running tests, mocking, spying, and much more.
> ## What's so special about unit testing?
> A unit test is supposed to test a single unit of code in isolation,
> hence the name. There should be no dependencies outside the control of
> the test; this means no external dependencies, which makes tests orders
> of magnitudes faster. Likewise, since there are no external dependencies,
> there are no hoops to jump through to run the tests. Additionally, this
> makes unit tests deterministic: a failing unit test always indicates a
> problem. Finally, because unit tests necessarily have finer granularity,
> they are able to test all code paths easily solving the classic problem
> of difficulty in exercising error handling code.
> ## Is KUnit trying to replace other testing frameworks for the kernel?
> No. Most existing tests for the Linux kernel are end-to-end tests, which
> have their place. A well tested system has lots of unit tests, a
> reasonable number of integration tests, and some end-to-end tests. KUnit
> is just trying to address the unit test space which is currently not
> being addressed.
> ## More information on KUnit
> There is a bunch of documentation near the end of this patch set that
> describes how to use KUnit and best practices for writing unit tests.
> For convenience I am hosting the compiled docs here:
> ## Changes Since Last Version
> - Updated patchset to apply cleanly on 4.19.
> - Stripped down patchset to focus on just the core features (I dropped
> mocking, spying, and the MMIO stuff for now; you can find these
> patches here:,
> as suggested by Rob.
> - Cleaned up some of the commit messages and tweaked commit order a
> bit based on suggestions.

Framework looks good. I think it would be helpful to include a real test
in the patch series to get a feel for how effective it is.

On one hand, KUnit stands on its own as its own and maybe it should be placed in
under tools/testing/KUnit, however I am wondering would it be beneficial for the
framework to under selftests.

I am a bit concerned about the number of test framework we have at the moment and
are we running the risk of fragmenting the landscape. I am concerned if this would
lead to developer confusion as to where to add tests.

That being said, I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other.

btw I started playing with kunit following the instructions and ran into problems:

usage: [-h] {run,new} ...

Helps writing and running KUnit tests.

positional arguments:
run Runs KUnit tests.
new Prints out boilerplate for writing new tests.

optional arguments:
-h, --help show this help message and exit

./tools/testing/kunit/ run
Regenerating .config ...
ERROR:root:Provided Kconfig is not contained in validated .config!

-- Shuah

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-02 19:24    [W:0.120 / U:31.016 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site