[RFC v3 14/19] Documentation: kunit: add documentation for KUnit

Brendan Higgins
2019-02-12T22:10:09Z

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 4:16 AM Kieran Bingham
<kieran.bingham@ideasonboard.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Brendan,
>
> On 09/02/2019 00:56, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 4:16 AM Kieran Bingham
> > <kieran.bingham@ideasonboard.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Brendan,
> >>
> >> On 03/12/2018 23:53, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018@7:45 PM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018@01:56:37PM +0000, Kieran Bingham wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Brendan,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please excuse the top posting, but I'm replying here as I'm following
> >>>>> the section "Creating a kunitconfig" in Documentation/kunit/start.rst.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Could the three line kunitconfig file live under say
> >>>>> arch/um/configs/kunit_defconfig?
> >>
> >>
> >> Further consideration to this topic - I mentioned putting it in
> >> arch/um/configs
> >>
> >> - but I think this is wrong.
> >>
> >> We now have a location for config-fragments, which is essentially what
> >> this is, under kernel/configs
> >>
> >> So perhaps an addition as :
> >>
> >> kernel/configs/kunit.config
> >>
> >> Would be more appropriate - and less (UM) architecture specific.
> >
> > Sorry for the long radio silence.
> >
> > I just got around to doing this and I found that there are some
> > configs that are desirable to have when running KUnit under x86 in a
> > VM, but not UML.
>
> Should this behaviour you mention be handled by the KCONFIG depends flags?
>
> depends on (KUMIT & UML)
> or
> depends on (KUNIT & !UML)
>
> or such?

Not really. Anything that is strictly necessary to run KUnit on an
architectures should of course be turned on as a dependency like you
suggest, but I am talking about stuff that you would probably want to
get yourself going, but is by no means necessary.

>
> An example of which configs you are referring to would help to
> understand the issue perhaps.
>

For example, you might want to enable a serial console that is known
to work with a fairly generic qemu setup when building for x86:
CONFIG_SERIAL_8250=y
CONFIG_SERIAL_8250_CONSOLE=y

Obviously not a dependency, and not even particularly useful to people
who know what they are doing, but to someone who is new or just wants
something to work out of the box would probably want that.

>
> > So should we have one that goes in with
> > config-fragments and others that go into architectures? Another idea,
> > it would be nice to have a KUnit config that runs all known tests
>
> This might also be a config option added to the tests directly like
> COMPILE_TEST perhaps?

That just allows a bunch of drivers to be compiled, it does not
actually go through and turn the configs on, right? I mean, there is
no a priori way to know that there is a configuration which spans all
possible options available under COMPILE_TEST, right? Maybe I
misunderstand what you are suggesting...

>
> (Not sure what that would be called though ... KUNIT_RUNTIME_TEST?)
>
> I think that might be more maintainable as otherwise each new test would
> have to modify the {min,def}{config,fragment} ...
>

Looking at kselftest-merge, they just start out with a set of
fragments in which the union should contain all tests and then merge
it with a base .config (probably intended to be $(ARCH)_defconfig).
However, I don't know if that is the state of the art.

>
> > (this probably won't work in practice once we start testing mutually
> > exclusive things or things with lots of ifdeffery, but it probably
> > something we should try to maintain as best as we can?); this probably
> > shouldn't go in with the fragments, right?
>
> Sounds like we agree there :)

Totally. Long term we will need something a lot more sophisticated
than anything under discussion here. I was talking about this with
Luis on another thread:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/kunit-dev/EQ1x0SzrUus (feel
free to chime in!). Nevertheless, that's a really hard problem and I
figure some variant of defconfigs and config fragments will work well
enough until we reach that point.

>
> >
> > I will be sending another revision out soon, but I figured I might be
> > able to catch you before I did so.
>
> Thanks for thinking of me.

How can I forget? You have been super helpful!

> I hope I managed to reply in time to help and not hinder your progress.

Yep, no trouble at all. You are the one helping me :-)

Thanks!