Re: [RFC v4 00/17] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework

[Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>]

On 3/4/19 3:01 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 1:38 PM Brendan Higgins
> <brendanhiggins@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> This patch set proposes KUnit, a lightweight unit testing and mocking
>> framework for the Linux kernel.
>>
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> ## More information on KUnit
>>
>> There is a bunch of documentation near the end of this patch set that
>> describes how to use KUnit and best practices for writing unit tests.
>> For convenience I am hosting the compiled docs here:
>> https://google.github.io/kunit-docs/third_party/kernel/docs/
>> Additionally for convenience, I have applied these patches to a branch:
>> https://kunit.googlesource.com/linux/+/kunit/rfc/5.0-rc5/v4
>> The repo may be cloned with:
>> git clone https://kunit.googlesource.com/linux
>> This patchset is on the kunit/rfc/5.0-rc5/v4 branch.
>>
>> ## Changes Since Last Version
>>
>>  - Got KUnit working on (hypothetically) all architectures (tested on
>>    x86), as per Rob's (and other's) request
>>  - Punting all KUnit features/patches depending on UML for now.
>>  - Broke out UML specific support into arch/um/* as per "[RFC v3 01/19]
>>    kunit: test: add KUnit test runner core", as requested by Luis.
>>  - Added support to kunit_tool to allow it to build kernels in external
>>    directories, as suggested by Kieran.
>>  - Added a UML defconfig, and a config fragment for KUnit as suggested
>>    by Kieran and Luis.
>>  - Cleaned up, and reformatted a bunch of stuff.
>>
>> --
>> 2.21.0.rc0.258.g878e2cd30e-goog
>>
> 
> Someone suggested I should send the next revision out as "PATCH"
> instead of "RFC" since there seems to be general consensus about
> everything at a high level, with a couple exceptions.
> 
> At this time I am planning on sending the next revision out as "[PATCH
> v1 00/NN] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing
> framework". Initially I wasn't sure if the next revision should be
> "[PATCH v1 ...]" or "[PATCH v5 ...]". Please let me know if you have a
> strong objection to the former.
> 
> In the next revision, I will be dropping the last two of three patches
> for the DT unit tests as there doesn't seem to be enough features
> currently available to justify the heavy refactoring I did; however, I

Thank you.


> will still include the patch that just converts everything over to
> KUnit without restructuring the test cases:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/2/14/1133

The link doesn't work for me (don't worry about that), so I'm assuming
this is:

   [RFC v4 15/17] of: unittest: migrate tests to run on KUnit

The conversation on that patch ended after:

   >> After adding patch 15, there are a lot of "unittest internal error" messages.
   > 
   > Yeah, I meant to ask you about that. I thought it was due to a change
   > you made, but after further examination, just now, I found it was my
   > fault. Sorry for not mentioning that anywhere. I will fix it in v5.

It is not worth my time to look at patch 15 when it is that broken.  So I
have not done any review of it.

So no, I think you are still in the RFC stage unless you drop patch 15.

> 
> I should have the next revision out in a week or so.
> 

_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list
Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm