Date:   Wed, 13 Feb 2019 16:17:13 -0800
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
To:     Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com>
Cc:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>, shuah@...nel.org,
        Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, brakmo@...com,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        "Bird, Timothy" <Tim.Bird@...y.com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        linux-um@...ts.infradead.org, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Knut Omang <knut.omang@...cle.com>,
        Felix Guo <felixguoxiuping@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 14/19] Documentation: kunit: add documentation for KUnit

On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 1:55 PM Kieran Bingham
<kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Brendan,
>
> On 12/02/2019 22:10, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 4:16 AM Kieran Bingham
> > <kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Brendan,
> >>
> >> On 09/02/2019 00:56, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 4:16 AM Kieran Bingham
> >>> <kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Brendan,
> >>>>
> >>>> On 03/12/2018 23:53, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 7:45 PM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 01:56:37PM +0000, Kieran Bingham wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hi Brendan,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Please excuse the top posting, but I'm replying here as I'm following
> >>>>>>> the section "Creating a kunitconfig" in Documentation/kunit/start.rst.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Could the three line kunitconfig file live under say
> >>>>>>>        arch/um/configs/kunit_defconfig?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Further consideration to this topic - I mentioned putting it in
> >>>>   arch/um/configs
> >>>>
> >>>> - but I think this is wrong.
> >>>>
> >>>> We now have a location for config-fragments, which is essentially what
> >>>> this is, under kernel/configs
> >>>>
> >>>> So perhaps an addition as :
> >>>>
> >>>>  kernel/configs/kunit.config
> >>>>
> >>>> Would be more appropriate - and less (UM) architecture specific.
> >>>
> >>> Sorry for the long radio silence.
> >>>
> >>> I just got around to doing this and I found that there are some
> >>> configs that are desirable to have when running KUnit under x86 in a
> >>> VM, but not UML.
> >>
> >> Should this behaviour you mention be handled by the KCONFIG depends flags?
> >>
> >> depends on (KUMIT & UML)
> >> or
> >> depends on (KUNIT & !UML)
> >>
> >> or such?
> >
> > Not really. Anything that is strictly necessary to run KUnit on an
> > architectures should of course be turned on as a dependency like you
> > suggest, but I am talking about stuff that you would probably want to
> > get yourself going, but is by no means necessary.
> >
> >>
> >> An example of which configs you are referring to would help to
> >> understand the issue perhaps.
> >>
> >
> > For example, you might want to enable a serial console that is known
> > to work with a fairly generic qemu setup when building for x86:
> > CONFIG_SERIAL_8250=y
> > CONFIG_SERIAL_8250_CONSOLE=y
> >
> > Obviously not a dependency, and not even particularly useful to people
> > who know what they are doing, but to someone who is new or just wants
> > something to work out of the box would probably want that.
>
> It sounds like that would be a config fragment for qemu ?
>
> Although - perhaps this is already covered by the following fragment:
>    kernel/configs/kvm_guest.config
>

Oh, yep, you are right. Does that mean we should bother at all with a defconfig?

Luis, I know you said you wanted one. I am thinking just stick with
the UML one? The downside there is we then get stuck having to
maintain the fragment and the defconfig. I right now (in the new
revision I am working on) have the Python kunit_tool copy the
defconfig if no kunitconfig is provided and a flag is set. It would be
pretty straightforward to make it merge in the fragment instead.

All that being said, I think I am going to drop the arch/x86
defconfig, since I think we all agree that it is not very useful, but
keep the UML defconfig and the fragment. That will at least given
something concrete to discuss.

>
> >>> So should we have one that goes in with
> >>> config-fragments and others that go into architectures? Another idea,
> >>> it would be nice to have a KUnit config that runs all known tests
> >>
> >> This might also be a config option added to the tests directly like
> >> COMPILE_TEST perhaps?
> >
> > That just allows a bunch of drivers to be compiled, it does not
> > actually go through and turn the configs on, right? I mean, there is
> > no a priori way to know that there is a configuration which spans all
> > possible options available under COMPILE_TEST, right? Maybe I
> > misunderstand what you are suggesting...
>
> Bah - you're right of course. I was mis-remembering the functionality of
> COMPILE_TEST as if it were some sort of 'select' but it's just an enable..
>
> Sorry for the confusion.
>

No problem, I thought for a second that was a good example too (and I
wish it were. It would make my life so much easier!). I remember
getting emails with a COMPILE_TEST config attached that demonstrates
an invalid build caused by my changes, presumably that email bot just
tries random configs with a new change until it finds one that breaks.

>
> >> (Not sure what that would be called though ... KUNIT_RUNTIME_TEST?)
> >>
> >> I think that might be more maintainable as otherwise each new test would
> >> have to modify the {min,def}{config,fragment} ...
> >>
> >
> > Looking at kselftest-merge, they just start out with a set of
> > fragments in which the union should contain all tests and then merge
> > it with a base .config (probably intended to be $(ARCH)_defconfig).
> > However, I don't know if that is the state of the art.
> >
> >>
> >>> (this probably won't work in practice once we start testing mutually
> >>> exclusive things or things with lots of ifdeffery, but it probably
> >>> something we should try to maintain as best as we can?); this probably
> >>> shouldn't go in with the fragments, right?
> >>
> >> Sounds like we agree there :)
> >
> > Totally. Long term we will need something a lot more sophisticated
> > than anything under discussion here. I was talking about this with
> > Luis on another thread:
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/kunit-dev/EQ1x0SzrUus (feel
> > free to chime in!). Nevertheless, that's a really hard problem and I
> > figure some variant of defconfigs and config fragments will work well
> > enough until we reach that point.
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I will be sending another revision out soon, but I figured I might be
> >>> able to catch you before I did so.
> >>
> >> Thanks for thinking of me.
> >
> > How can I forget? You have been super helpful!
> >
> >> I hope I managed to reply in time to help and not hinder your progress.
> >
> > Yep, no trouble at all. You are the one helping me :-)
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
>
> --
> Regards
> --
> Kieran

Powered by blists - more mailing lists