Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC v3 14/19] Documentation: kunit: add documentation for KUnit | From | Kieran Bingham <> | Date | Mon, 11 Feb 2019 12:16:08 +0000 |
| |
Hi Brendan,
On 09/02/2019 00:56, Brendan Higgins wrote: > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 4:16 AM Kieran Bingham > <kieran.bingham@ideasonboard.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Brendan, >> >> On 03/12/2018 23:53, Brendan Higgins wrote: >>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 7:45 PM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 01:56:37PM +0000, Kieran Bingham wrote: >>>>> Hi Brendan, >>>>> >>>>> Please excuse the top posting, but I'm replying here as I'm following >>>>> the section "Creating a kunitconfig" in Documentation/kunit/start.rst. >>>>> >>>>> Could the three line kunitconfig file live under say >>>>> arch/um/configs/kunit_defconfig? >> >> >> Further consideration to this topic - I mentioned putting it in >> arch/um/configs >> >> - but I think this is wrong. >> >> We now have a location for config-fragments, which is essentially what >> this is, under kernel/configs >> >> So perhaps an addition as : >> >> kernel/configs/kunit.config >> >> Would be more appropriate - and less (UM) architecture specific. > > Sorry for the long radio silence. > > I just got around to doing this and I found that there are some > configs that are desirable to have when running KUnit under x86 in a > VM, but not UML.
Should this behaviour you mention be handled by the KCONFIG depends flags?
depends on (KUMIT & UML) or depends on (KUNIT & !UML)
or such?
An example of which configs you are referring to would help to understand the issue perhaps.
> So should we have one that goes in with > config-fragments and others that go into architectures? Another idea, > it would be nice to have a KUnit config that runs all known tests
This might also be a config option added to the tests directly like COMPILE_TEST perhaps?
(Not sure what that would be called though ... KUNIT_RUNTIME_TEST?)
I think that might be more maintainable as otherwise each new test would have to modify the {min,def}{config,fragment} ...
> (this probably won't work in practice once we start testing mutually > exclusive things or things with lots of ifdeffery, but it probably > something we should try to maintain as best as we can?); this probably > shouldn't go in with the fragments, right?
Sounds like we agree there :)
> > I will be sending another revision out soon, but I figured I might be > able to catch you before I did so.
Thanks for thinking of me. I hope I managed to reply in time to help and not hinder your progress.
-- Regards -- Kieran
| |