Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] kunit/kunit_kernel: Rebuild .config if .kunitconfig is modified | From | shuah <> | Date | Fri, 13 Mar 2020 09:45:40 -0600 |
| |
On 2/5/20 3:09 PM, Russell Currey wrote: > On Thu, Feb 6, 2020, at 7:00 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 9:58 AM David Gow <davidgow@google.com> wrote: >>> >>> One thing we'd like to do with kunit_tool is to make its functionality >>> a bit more independent: in particular, allowing the configuration, >>> running the kernel, and parsing the results to be done independently. >>> >>> If that's the case, it may make sense for "kunit.py run" or similar to >>> not do anything with the .config, and to relegate that to a separate >>> "configuration" step, which would allow someone to modify the >>> configuration themselves (e.g., using make menuconfig) and re-run the >>> tests, but also allow the config to be explicitly regenerated when >>> helpful. >>> >>> Exactly what that'd end up looking like (and to what extent we'd still >>> want to support a single command that'd do both) are still up in the >>> air: but I think a general "separation of concerns" like this is >>> probably the right path forward for kunit_tool. >> >> You and I have talked about splitting up kunit_tool's functionality >> before. I agree with the idea. >> >> I imagine it that we would have >> >> - configuration >> - running tests >> - dmesg/TAP parsing >> >> as separate runnable scripts. I think that would make it a lot easier >> for people with various test bed setups to reuse our code in their >> test harness. >> >> Nevertheless, I think it would also be nice to have, as Ted has >> previously suggested, a short easy to remember one line command that >> just works; it is easily said, and much harder to do, but I think it >> is at odds with the separation of functionality. I guess one solution >> might just be to have these three separate tools, and then the classic >> kunit.py script that combines the functionalities in a single step, or >> as Ted suggested we could have some sort of default "make kunit" >> command or something like that. I am not really sure what is best >> here. >> >> It doesn't address the problem of separation of functionality in >> anyway, but one way we could achieve the idea of having a command that >> just works, is by putting a line in MAINTAINERS file entries that have >> a command that a maintainer expects a submitter to run before sending >> a patch to LKML. That might at least make it possible to hack together >> a single line KUnit command for every relevant MAINTAINERS entry. >> (Obviously there is no reason we have to do this particular idea just >> for KUnit. We could do this for other tests as well.) Russel, I think >> this was your idea at LCA? > > Hi Brendan, it wasn't me, it was someone in the audience during questions in my > testing talk. I don't recall who. > > They were suggesting a script like get_maintainers - i.e. get_tests - that for a > given file/patch/commit it gives you a suggested set of tests, whether that's > KUnit you can run there and then, or selftests you can run once it's booted, > or maybe external test suites that are relevant. >
I like this idea of get_tests type script that could be run separately as well as part of check_patch or get_maintainers will serve as a reminder or hint to patch submitter.
We have some pieces in the MAINTAINERS file now. Selftest files are usually listed under subsystem entries. get_tests could leverage that and we will definitely more information to for a complete set of tests for a subsystem.
thanks, -- Shuah
| |