Re: [PATCH v2 linux-kselftest-test 0/3] kunit: support building core/tests as modules

[Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>]

On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 03:02:03PM +0100, Alan Maguire wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2019, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 03:55:43PM +0100, Alan Maguire wrote:
> > > The current kunit execution model is to provide base kunit functionality
> > > and tests built-in to the kernel.  The aim of this series is to allow
> > > building kunit itself and tests as modules.  This in turn allows a
> > > simple form of selective execution; load the module you wish to test.
> > > In doing so, kunit itself (if also built as a module) will be loaded as
> > > an implicit dependency.
> > > 
> > > Because this requires a core API modification - if a module delivers
> > > multiple suites, they must be declared with the kunit_test_suites()
> > > macro - we're proposing this patch as a candidate to be applied to the
> > > test tree before too many kunit consumers appear.  We attempt to deal
> > > with existing consumers in patch 1.
> > 
> > This is neat and makes sense to me.
> 
> Thanks for taking a look!
> 
> > However the ordering of the patches
> > seems odd. If modules depend on kunit module, then shouldn't that go
> > first? Ie, we want this to be bisectable in proper order.
> > 
> 
> The reasoning here is it seemed a more likely scenario that users mught  
> build kunit built-in (CONFIG_KUNIT=y) along with test suites built as 
> modules (CONFIG_KUNIT_TEST=m). So the intermediate state after patch 2 - 
> tests buildable as modules while kunit is still built-in-only - made more 
> sense to me as something users might do in practice so that's why I 
> ordered things that way.  I'm working on a new revision of the patchset
> though, so if you feel strongly about this shout and I'll try and accommodate
> the alternative ordering.

No, that makes sense. All good.

  Luis