[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFd5g47zVi2eHDjCaSb1M7U6usK4sP9OM8T-YQgR6uZXooHtYg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2021 15:46:47 -0800
From: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
To: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
Cc: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kunit: make kunit_tool accept optional path to
.kunitconfig fragment
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 12:55 PM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> Currently running tests via KUnit tool means tweaking a .kunitconfig
> file, which you'd keep around locally and never commit.
> This changes makes it so users can pass in a path to a kunitconfig.
>
> One of the imagined use cases is having kunitconfig fragments in-tree
> to formalize interesting sets of tests for features/subsystems, e.g.
> $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunticonfig=fs/ext4/kunitconfig
>
> For now, this hypothetical fs/ext4/kunitconfig would contain
> CONFIG_KUNIT=y
> CONFIG_EXT4_FS=y
> CONFIG_EXT4_KUNIT_TESTS=y
>
> At the moment, it's not hard to manually whip up this file, but as more
> and more tests get added, this will get tedious.
>
> It also opens the door to documenting how to run all the tests relevant
> to a specific subsystem or feature as a simple one-liner.
>
> This can be seen as an analogue to tools/testing/selftests/*/config
> But in the case of KUnit, the tests live in the same directory as the
> code-under-test, so it feels more natural to allow the kunitconfig
> fragments to live anywhere. (Though, people could create a separate
> directory if wanted; this patch imposes no restrictions on the path).
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
Tested-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists