lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Mar]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: [RFC v4 00/17] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework
    On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 6:12 PM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > On 3/21/19 4:33 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
    > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 3:27 PM Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> On 2019-03-21 4:07 p.m., Brendan Higgins wrote:
    > >>> A couple of points, as for needing CONFIG_PCI; my plan to deal with
    > >>> that type of thing has been that we would add support for a KUnit/UML
    > >>> version that is just for KUnit. It would mock out the necessary bits
    > >>> to provide a fake hardware implementation for anything that might
    > >>> depend on it. I wrote a prototype for mocking/faking MMIO that I
    > >>> presented to the list here[1]; it is not part of the current patchset
    > >>> because we decided it would be best to focus on getting an MVP in, but
    > >>> I plan on bringing it back up at some point. Anyway, what do you
    > >>> generally think of this approach?
    > >>
    > >> Yes, I was wondering if that might be possible. I think that's a great
    > >> approach but it will unfortunately take a lot of work before larger
    > >> swaths of the kernel are testable in Kunit with UML. Having more common
    > >> mocked infrastructure will be great by-product of it though.
    > >
    > > Yeah, it's unfortunate that the best way to do something often takes
    > > so much longer.
    > >
    > >>
    > >>> Awesome, I looked at the code you posted and it doesn't look like you
    > >>> have had too many troubles. One thing that stood out to me, why did
    > >>> you need to put it in the kunit/ dir?
    > >>
    > >> Yeah, writing the code was super easy. Only after, did I realized I
    > >> couldn't get it to easily build.
    > >
    > > Yeah, we really need to fix that; unfortunately, broadly addressing
    > > that problem is really hard and will most likely take a long time.
    > >
    > >>
    > >> Putting it in the kunit directory was necessary because nothing in the
    > >> NTB tree builds unless CONFIG_NTB is set (see drivers/Makefile) and
    > >> CONFIG_NTB depends on CONFIG_PCI. I didn't experiment to see how hard it
    > >> would be to set CONFIG_NTB without CONFIG_PCI; I assumed it would be tricky.
    > >>
    > >>> I am looking forward to see what you think!
    > >>
    > >> Generally, I'm impressed and want to see this work in upstream as soon
    > >> as possible so I can start to make use of it!
    > >
    > > Great to hear! I was trying to get the next revision out this week,
    > > but addressing some of the comments is taking a little longer than
    > > expected. I should have something together fairly soon though
    > > (hopefully next week). Good news is that next revision will be
    > > non-RFC; most of the feedback has settled down and I think we are
    > > ready to start figuring out how to merge it. Fingers crossed :-)
    > >
    > > Cheers
    >
    > I'll be out of the office next week and will not be able to review.
    > Please hold off on any devicetree related files until after I review.

    Will do.

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2019-03-25 23:13    [W:3.024 / U:0.072 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site