[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3bdbe44c-5bd8-db37-89f9-a518cd5a21a8@deltatee.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 16:26:45 -0600
From: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
To: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>, shuah@...nel.org,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com>,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.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>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
Knut Omang <knut.omang@...cle.com>,
devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@...rosoft.com>,
Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>, wfg@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v4 00/17] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit
testing framework
On 2019-03-21 4:07 p.m., Brendan Higgins wrote:
> A couple of points, as for needing CONFIG_PCI; my plan to deal with
> that type of thing has been that we would add support for a KUnit/UML
> version that is just for KUnit. It would mock out the necessary bits
> to provide a fake hardware implementation for anything that might
> depend on it. I wrote a prototype for mocking/faking MMIO that I
> presented to the list here[1]; it is not part of the current patchset
> because we decided it would be best to focus on getting an MVP in, but
> I plan on bringing it back up at some point. Anyway, what do you
> generally think of this approach?
Yes, I was wondering if that might be possible. I think that's a great
approach but it will unfortunately take a lot of work before larger
swaths of the kernel are testable in Kunit with UML. Having more common
mocked infrastructure will be great by-product of it though.
> Awesome, I looked at the code you posted and it doesn't look like you
> have had too many troubles. One thing that stood out to me, why did
> you need to put it in the kunit/ dir?
Yeah, writing the code was super easy. Only after, did I realized I
couldn't get it to easily build.
Putting it in the kunit directory was necessary because nothing in the
NTB tree builds unless CONFIG_NTB is set (see drivers/Makefile) and
CONFIG_NTB depends on CONFIG_PCI. I didn't experiment to see how hard it
would be to set CONFIG_NTB without CONFIG_PCI; I assumed it would be tricky.
> I am looking forward to see what you think!
Generally, I'm impressed and want to see this work in upstream as soon
as possible so I can start to make use of it!
Logan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists