Re: [PATCH v2 00/17] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework

Logan Gunthorpe
2019-05-15T00:27:02Z

On 2019-05-14 6:14 p.m., Frank Rowand wrote:
> The high level issue is to provide reviewers with enough context to be
> able to evaluate the patch series. That is probably not very obvious
> at this point in the thread. At this point I was responding to Logan's
> response to me that I should be reading Documentation to get a better
> description of KUnit features. I _think_ that Logan thought that I
> did not understand KUnit features and was trying to be helpful by
> pointing out where I could get more information. If so, he was missing
> my intended point had been that patch 0 should provide more information
> to justify adding this feature.

Honestly, I lost track of wait exactly your point was. And, in my
opinion, Brendan has provided over and above the information required to
justify Kunit's inclusion.

> One thing that has become very apparent in the discussion of this patch
> series is that some people do not understand that kselftest includes
> in-kernel tests, not just userspace tests. As such, KUnit is an
> additional implementation of "the same feature". (One can debate
> exactly which in-kernel test features kselftest and KUnit provide,
> and how much overlap exists or does not exist. So don't take "the
> same feature" as my final opinion of how much overlap exists.) So
> that is a key element to be noted and explained.

From my perspective, once we were actually pointed to the in-kernel
kselftest code and took a look at it, it was clear there was no
over-arching framework to them and that Kunit could be used to
significantly improve those tests with a common structure. Based on my
reading of the thread, Ted came to the same conclusion.

I don't think we should block this feature from being merged, and for
future work, someone can update the in-kernel kselftests to use the new
framework.

Logan