Re: [PATCH net] Revert "kunit: configs: Enable CONFIG_INIT_STACK_ALL_PATTERN in all_tests"

[Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>]

On Fri, 30 May 2025 10:59:54 -0600 Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 5/30/25 07:58, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > This reverts commit a571a9a1b120264e24b41eddf1ac5140131bfa84.
> > 
> > The commit in question breaks kunit for older compilers:  
> > > $ gcc --version  
> >   gcc (GCC) 11.5.0 20240719 (Red Hat 11.5.0-5)
> > 
> > $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run  --alltests --json --arch=x86_64
> >   Configuring KUnit Kernel ...
> >   Regenerating .config ...
> >   Populating config with:
> >   $ make ARCH=x86_64 O=.kunit olddefconfig  
> 
> 
> >   ERROR:root:Not all Kconfig options selected in kunitconfig were in the generated .config.
> >   This is probably due to unsatisfied dependencies.
> >   Missing: CONFIG_INIT_STACK_ALL_PATTERN=y  
> 
> Does adding config option work for you?
> ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kconfig_add CONFIG_INIT_STACK_ALL_PATTERN

Nope (with this patch applied):

$ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kconfig_add CONFIG_INIT_STACK_ALL_PATTERN=y
[18:02:47] Configuring KUnit Kernel ...
Regenerating .config ...
Populating config with:
$ make ARCH=um O=.kunit olddefconfig
ERROR:root:Not all Kconfig options selected in kunitconfig were in the generated .config.
This is probably due to unsatisfied dependencies.
Missing: CONFIG_INIT_STACK_ALL_PATTERN=y
Note: many Kconfig options aren't available on UML. You can try running on a different architecture with something like "--arch=x86_64".

> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/20250529083811.778bc31b@kernel.org
> > Fixes: a571a9a1b120 ("kunit: configs: Enable CONFIG_INIT_STACK_ALL_PATTERN in all_tests")
> > Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
> > ---
> > I'd like to take this in via netdev since it fixes our CI.
> > We'll send it to Linus next week.
> >   
> 
> I am good with reverting it for now.
> 
> David, Brendan,
> We will have to enable this at a later time. Also we saw this problem
> before with other configs. Anyway way to fix this for alltests case?

FWIW Richard commented in the linked thread, IIUC this was just for
added coverage but not a hard requirement.