From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf1-x442.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::442]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1h78ub-0008SF-6D for linux-um@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 01:23:59 +0000 Received: by mail-pf1-x442.google.com with SMTP id p10so344598pff.3 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 18:23:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [RFC v4 00/17] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework References: <20190214213729.21702-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> From: Frank Rowand Message-ID: <0e6eb370-3e62-e1a5-1b91-bccc5868e8e4@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 18:23:53 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-um" Errors-To: linux-um-bounces+geert=linux-m68k.org@lists.infradead.org To: Brendan Higgins , Kees Cook , Luis Chamberlain , shuah@kernel.org, Rob Herring , Kieran Bingham Cc: brakmo@fb.com, Petr Mladek , Amir Goldstein , dri-devel , Sasha Levin , linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm , Richard Weinberger , Knut Omang , wfg@linux.intel.com, Joel Stanley , Jeff Dike , Dan Carpenter , devicetree , "Bird, Timothy" , linux-um@lists.infradead.org, Steven Rostedt , Julia Lawall , Dan Williams , kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, Greg KH , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Daniel Vetter , Michael Ellerman , Joe Perches , Kevin Hilman On 3/4/19 3:01 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote: > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 1:38 PM Brendan Higgins > wrote: >> >> This patch set proposes KUnit, a lightweight unit testing and mocking >> framework for the Linux kernel. >> > > > >> ## 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-um mailing list linux-um@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um