From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Frank Rowand Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/17] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework Date: Thu, 9 May 2019 22:18:25 -0700 Message-ID: <6d6e91ec-33d3-830b-4895-4d7a20ba7d45@gmail.com> References: <20190509015856.GB7031@mit.edu> <580e092f-fa4e-eedc-9e9a-a57dd085f0a6@gmail.com> <20190509032017.GA29703@mit.edu> <7fd35df81c06f6eb319223a22e7b93f29926edb9.camel@oracle.com> <20190509133551.GD29703@mit.edu> <875c546d-9713-bb59-47e4-77a1d2c69a6d@gmail.com> <20190509214233.GA20877@mit.edu> <20190509233043.GC20877@mit.edu> <8914afef-1e66-e6e3-f891-5855768d3018@deltatee.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <8914afef-1e66-e6e3-f891-5855768d3018@deltatee.com> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Logan Gunthorpe , Theodore Ts'o , Tim.Bird@sony.com, knut.omang@oracle.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, brendanhiggins@google.com, keescook@google.com, kieran.bingham@ideasonboard.com, mcgrof@kernel.org, robh@kernel.org, sboyd@kernel.org, shuah@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, linux-um@lists.infradead.org, Alexander.Levin@microsoft.com, amir73il@gmail.com, dan.carpenter@oracle.com, dan.j.williams@intel.com, daniel@ffwll.ch, jdike@addtoit.com, joel@jms.id.au, julia.lawall@lip6.fr, khilman@baylibre. List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 5/9/19 4:40 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On 2019-05-09 5:30 p.m., Theodore Ts'o wrote: >> On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 04:20:05PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: >>> >>> The second item, arguably, does have significant overlap with kselftest. >>> Whether you are running short tests in a light weight UML environment or >>> higher level tests in an heavier VM the two could be using the same >>> framework for writing or defining in-kernel tests. It *may* also be valuable >>> for some people to be able to run all the UML tests in the heavy VM >>> environment along side other higher level tests. >>> >>> Looking at the selftests tree in the repo, we already have similar items to >>> what Kunit is adding as I described in point (2) above. kselftest_harness.h >>> contains macros like EXPECT_* and ASSERT_* with very similar intentions to >>> the new KUNIT_EXECPT_* and KUNIT_ASSERT_* macros. >>> >>> However, the number of users of this harness appears to be quite small. Most >>> of the code in the selftests tree seems to be a random mismash of scripts >>> and userspace code so it's not hard to see it as something completely >>> different from the new Kunit: >>> >>> $ git grep --files-with-matches kselftest_harness.h * >> >> To the extent that we can unify how tests are written, I agree that >> this would be a good thing.  However, you should note that >> kselftest_harness.h is currently assums that it will be included in >> userspace programs.  This is most obviously seen if you look closely >> at the functions defined in the header files which makes calls to >> fork(), abort() and fprintf(). > > Ah, yes. I obviously did not dig deep enough. Using kunit for > in-kernel tests and kselftest_harness for userspace tests seems like > a sensible line to draw to me. Trying to unify kernel and userspace > here sounds like it could be difficult so it's probably not worth > forcing the issue unless someone wants to do some really fancy work > to get it done. > > Based on some of the other commenters, I was under the impression > that kselftests had in-kernel tests but I'm not sure where or if they > exist. YES, kselftest has in-kernel tests. (Excuse the shouting...) Here is a likely list of them in the kernel source tree: $ grep module_init lib/test_*.c lib/test_bitfield.c:module_init(test_bitfields) lib/test_bitmap.c:module_init(test_bitmap_init); lib/test_bpf.c:module_init(test_bpf_init); lib/test_debug_virtual.c:module_init(test_debug_virtual_init); lib/test_firmware.c:module_init(test_firmware_init); lib/test_hash.c:module_init(test_hash_init); /* Does everything */ lib/test_hexdump.c:module_init(test_hexdump_init); lib/test_ida.c:module_init(ida_checks); lib/test_kasan.c:module_init(kmalloc_tests_init); lib/test_list_sort.c:module_init(list_sort_test); lib/test_memcat_p.c:module_init(test_memcat_p_init); lib/test_module.c:static int __init test_module_init(void) lib/test_module.c:module_init(test_module_init); lib/test_objagg.c:module_init(test_objagg_init); lib/test_overflow.c:static int __init test_module_init(void) lib/test_overflow.c:module_init(test_module_init); lib/test_parman.c:module_init(test_parman_init); lib/test_printf.c:module_init(test_printf_init); lib/test_rhashtable.c:module_init(test_rht_init); lib/test_siphash.c:module_init(siphash_test_init); lib/test_sort.c:module_init(test_sort_init); lib/test_stackinit.c:module_init(test_stackinit_init); lib/test_static_key_base.c:module_init(test_static_key_base_init); lib/test_static_keys.c:module_init(test_static_key_init); lib/test_string.c:module_init(string_selftest_init); lib/test_ubsan.c:module_init(test_ubsan_init); lib/test_user_copy.c:module_init(test_user_copy_init); lib/test_uuid.c:module_init(test_uuid_init); lib/test_vmalloc.c:module_init(vmalloc_test_init) lib/test_xarray.c:module_init(xarray_checks); > If they do exists, it seems like it would make sense to > convert those to kunit and have Kunit tests run-able in a VM or > baremetal instance. They already run in a VM. They already run on bare metal. They already run in UML. This is not to say that KUnit does not make sense. But I'm still trying to get a better description of the KUnit features (and there are some). -Frank