Re: [PATCH 0/2] rust: kunit: enforce test configurability

["Gary Guo" <gary@garyguo.net>]

On Tue Aug 18, 2026 at 9:44 PM BST, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 5:23 PM Yury Norov <ynorov@nvidia.com> wrote:
>>
>> Make every Rust KUnit test suite require the Kconfig option that controls
>> it, and let the `kunit_tests` macro apply the corresponding `#[cfg]`
>> attribute.
>
> If we are sure we always want at least one `cfg` guarding them, then
> yeah, this makes sense (we could ask to write the `cfg` bit inside,
> for "greppability", and for clarity / less ambiguity later on).
>
> David: are there cases on KUnit where you would recommend/prefer
> something different?
>
> For instance, I could imagine a Rust `mod` for testing purposes
> already gated by a `cfg` that is meant to contain many tests, and then
> different suites inside that for control (possibly with extra `cfg`s,
> but maybe none too for some).

There might also be cases where we want some other conditional (like combination
of cfgs) to gate.

I am okay with gating existing ones under new cfgs, but requiring one in macro
invocation itself sounds bit excessive, and also doesn't look nice :)

If we decide on actually requiring one, a better option might me for me to
implement a lint in klint to produce a warning that is suppressable if people
actually don't want to use cfgs.

Best,
Gary