[PATCH] drm/doc: Document KUnit expectations

[PATCH] drm/doc: Document KUnit expectations

[Maxime Ripard]

The DRM and KMS frameworks and helpers gain more and more kunit
coverage, so let's document what our expectations are.

Suggested-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>

---

I'm not too sure where those guidelines should be placed. Is it the best
place?
---
 Documentation/gpu/drm-internals.rst | 7 +++++++
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/drm-internals.rst b/Documentation/gpu/drm-internals.rst
index cb9ae282771c..94f93fd3b8a0 100644
--- a/Documentation/gpu/drm-internals.rst
+++ b/Documentation/gpu/drm-internals.rst
@@ -206,10 +206,17 @@ follows:
 	The configuration included in ``.kunitconfig`` should be as generic as
 	possible.
 	``CONFIG_VIRTIO_UML`` and ``CONFIG_UML_PCI_OVER_VIRTIO`` are not
 	included in it because they are only required for User Mode Linux.
 
+KUnit Coverage Rules
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+KUnit support is gradually added to the DRM framework and helpers. There's no
+general requirement for the framework and helpers to have KUnit tests at the
+moment. However, patches that are affecting a function or helper already
+covered by KUnit tests must provide tests if the change calls for one.
 
 Legacy Support Code
 ===================
 
 The section very briefly covers some of the old legacy support code
-- 
2.47.1

Re: [PATCH] drm/doc: Document KUnit expectations

[Jani Nikula]

On Mon, 13 Jan 2025, Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org> wrote:
> The DRM and KMS frameworks and helpers gain more and more kunit
> coverage, so let's document what our expectations are.
>
> Suggested-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>

Seems fair.

Acked-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>

---

On a related note, I was recently pinged again about the framebuffer
kunit tests causing warning backtraces on successful runs. I don't know
what to tell people, we kind of ended at an impasse [1]. Most tests
don't emit warnings, some do, and I'm still as reluctant as ever to
recommend folks to ignore warnings when running tests. We can agree to
disagree, but it doesn't really move things forward.

BR,
Jani.


[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/cover.1726594684.git.jani.nikula@intel.com



>
> ---
>
> I'm not too sure where those guidelines should be placed. Is it the best
> place?
> ---
>  Documentation/gpu/drm-internals.rst | 7 +++++++
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/drm-internals.rst b/Documentation/gpu/drm-internals.rst
> index cb9ae282771c..94f93fd3b8a0 100644
> --- a/Documentation/gpu/drm-internals.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/gpu/drm-internals.rst
> @@ -206,10 +206,17 @@ follows:
>  	The configuration included in ``.kunitconfig`` should be as generic as
>  	possible.
>  	``CONFIG_VIRTIO_UML`` and ``CONFIG_UML_PCI_OVER_VIRTIO`` are not
>  	included in it because they are only required for User Mode Linux.
>  
> +KUnit Coverage Rules
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +
> +KUnit support is gradually added to the DRM framework and helpers. There's no
> +general requirement for the framework and helpers to have KUnit tests at the
> +moment. However, patches that are affecting a function or helper already
> +covered by KUnit tests must provide tests if the change calls for one.
>  
>  Legacy Support Code
>  ===================
>  
>  The section very briefly covers some of the old legacy support code

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel

Re: [PATCH] drm/doc: Document KUnit expectations

[Javier Martinez Canillas]

Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org> writes:

> The DRM and KMS frameworks and helpers gain more and more kunit
> coverage, so let's document what our expectations are.
>
> Suggested-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>
>
> ---
>

Seems a reasonable expection to me.

Reviewed-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@redhat.com>

-- 
Best regards,

Javier Martinez Canillas
Core Platforms
Red Hat

Re: [PATCH] drm/doc: Document KUnit expectations

[Simona Vetter]

On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 10:06:59AM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org> writes:
> 
> > The DRM and KMS frameworks and helpers gain more and more kunit
> > coverage, so let's document what our expectations are.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>
> >
> > ---
> >
> 
> Seems a reasonable expection to me.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@redhat.com>

Acked-by: Simona Vetter <simona.vetter@ffwll.ch>

I think some more acks from folks working on Kunit tests would be great,
but that aside I think this accurately summarizes the discussion we had a
while back.
-Sima
-- 
Simona Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch

Re: [PATCH] drm/doc: Document KUnit expectations

[Tvrtko Ursulin]

On 13/01/2025 10:11, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> The DRM and KMS frameworks and helpers gain more and more kunit
> coverage, so let's document what our expectations are.
> 
> Suggested-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>
> 
> ---
> 
> I'm not too sure where those guidelines should be placed. Is it the best
> place?
> ---
>   Documentation/gpu/drm-internals.rst | 7 +++++++
>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/drm-internals.rst b/Documentation/gpu/drm-internals.rst
> index cb9ae282771c..94f93fd3b8a0 100644
> --- a/Documentation/gpu/drm-internals.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/gpu/drm-internals.rst
> @@ -206,10 +206,17 @@ follows:
>   	The configuration included in ``.kunitconfig`` should be as generic as
>   	possible.
>   	``CONFIG_VIRTIO_UML`` and ``CONFIG_UML_PCI_OVER_VIRTIO`` are not
>   	included in it because they are only required for User Mode Linux.
>   
> +KUnit Coverage Rules
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +
> +KUnit support is gradually added to the DRM framework and helpers. There's no
> +general requirement for the framework and helpers to have KUnit tests at the
> +moment. However, patches that are affecting a function or helper already
> +covered by KUnit tests must provide tests if the change calls for one.
>   
>   Legacy Support Code
>   ===================
>   
>   The section very briefly covers some of the old legacy support code

Acked-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@igalia.com>

Regards,

Tvrtko

Re: [PATCH] drm/doc: Document KUnit expectations

[Maíra Canal]

Hi Maxime,

On 13/01/25 07:11, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> The DRM and KMS frameworks and helpers gain more and more kunit
> coverage, so let's document what our expectations are.
> 
> Suggested-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>
> 
> ---
> 
> I'm not too sure where those guidelines should be placed. Is it the best
> place?
> ---
>   Documentation/gpu/drm-internals.rst | 7 +++++++
>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/drm-internals.rst b/Documentation/gpu/drm-internals.rst
> index cb9ae282771c..94f93fd3b8a0 100644
> --- a/Documentation/gpu/drm-internals.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/gpu/drm-internals.rst
> @@ -206,10 +206,17 @@ follows:
>   	The configuration included in ``.kunitconfig`` should be as generic as
>   	possible.
>   	``CONFIG_VIRTIO_UML`` and ``CONFIG_UML_PCI_OVER_VIRTIO`` are not
>   	included in it because they are only required for User Mode Linux.
>   
> +KUnit Coverage Rules
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +
> +KUnit support is gradually added to the DRM framework and helpers. There's no
> +general requirement for the framework and helpers to have KUnit tests at the
> +moment. However, patches that are affecting a function or helper already
> +covered by KUnit tests must provide tests if the change calls for one.
>   

Acked-by: Maíra Canal <mcanal@igalia.com>

Best Regards,
- Maíra

>   Legacy Support Code
>   ===================
>   
>   The section very briefly covers some of the old legacy support code

Re: [PATCH] drm/doc: Document KUnit expectations

[Maxime Ripard]

On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 11:11:00 +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> The DRM and KMS frameworks and helpers gain more and more kunit
> coverage, so let's document what our expectations are.
> 
> 

Applied to misc/kernel.git (drm-misc-next).

Thanks!
Maxime