From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu ([18.9.28.11] helo=outgoing.mit.edu) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1hOY7V-0001Cf-WF for linux-um@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 09 May 2019 01:45:18 +0000 Date: Wed, 8 May 2019 21:44:07 -0400 From: "Theodore Ts'o" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/17] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework Message-ID: <20190509014407.GA7031@mit.edu> References: <20190501230126.229218-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> <54940124-50df-16ec-1a32-ad794ee05da7@gmail.com> <20190507080119.GB28121@kroah.com> <20190507172256.GB5900@mit.edu> <4d963cdc-1cbb-35a3-292c-552f865ed1f7@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4d963cdc-1cbb-35a3-292c-552f865ed1f7@gmail.com> 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: Frank Rowand Cc: pmladek@suse.com, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, amir73il@gmail.com, Brendan Higgins , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, Alexander.Levin@microsoft.com, mpe@ellerman.id.au, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, shuah@kernel.org, robh@kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, khilman@baylibre.com, knut.omang@oracle.com, kieran.bingham@ideasonboard.com, wfg@linux.intel.com, joel@jms.id.au, rientjes@google.com, jdike@addtoit.com, dan.carpenter@oracle.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, Tim.Bird@sony.com, linux-um@lists.infradead.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, julia.lawall@lip6.fr, dan.j.williams@intel.com, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, richard@nod.at, sboyd@kernel.org, Greg KH , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mcgrof@kernel.org, daniel@ffwll.ch, keescook@google.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, logang@deltatee.com On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 05:58:49PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote: > > If KUnit is added to the kernel, and a subsystem that I am submitting > code for has chosen to use KUnit instead of kselftest, then yes, I do > *have* to use KUnit if my submission needs to contain a test for the > code unless I want to convince the maintainer that somehow my case > is special and I prefer to use kselftest instead of KUnittest. That's going to be between you and the maintainer. Today, if you want to submit a substantive change to xfs or ext4, you're going to be asked to create test for that new feature using xfstests. It doesn't matter that xfstests isn't in the kernel --- if that's what is required by the maintainer. > > supposed to be a simple way to run a large number of small tests that > > for specific small components in a system. > > kselftest also supports running a subset of tests. That subset of tests > can also be a large number of small tests. There is nothing inherent > in KUnit vs kselftest in this regard, as far as I am aware. The big difference is that kselftests are driven by a C program that runs in userspace. Take a look at tools/testing/selftests/filesystem/dnotify_test.c it has a main(int argc, char *argv) function. In contrast, KUnit are fragments of C code which run in the kernel; not in userspace. This allows us to test internal functions inside complex file system (such as the block allocator in ext4) directly. This makes it *fundamentally* different from kselftest. Cheers, - Ted _______________________________________________ linux-um mailing list linux-um@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um