From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Logan Gunthorpe Subject: Re: [RFC v4 00/17] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 16:26:45 -0600 Message-ID: <3bdbe44c-5bd8-db37-89f9-a518cd5a21a8@deltatee.com> References: <20190214213729.21702-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> <6d9b3b21-1179-3a45-7545-30aa15306cb4@deltatee.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-CA Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Brendan Higgins Cc: Kees Cook , Luis Chamberlain , shuah@kernel.org, Rob Herring , Kieran Bingham , Frank Rowand , Greg KH , Joel Stanley , Michael Ellerman , Joe Perches , brakmo@fb.com, Steven Rostedt , "Bird, Timothy" , Kevin Hilman , Julia Lawall , linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List , Jeff Dike , Richard Weinberger , linux-um@lists.infradead.org, Daniel Vetter List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org 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. > 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. 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! Logan