[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGS_qxrUZzFWWDHxWnwj+WyNhT1TQCkwCNd5UJieZyAu79UTpg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 11:19:35 -0800
From: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
To: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Cc: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
KUnit Development <kunit-dev@...glegroups.com>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] kunit: tool: properly report the used arch for
--json, or '' if not known
On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 10:26 PM David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 4:52 AM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > Before, kunit.py always printed "arch": "UM" in its json output, but...
> > 1. With `kunit.py parse`, we could be parsing output from anywhere, so
> > we can't say that.
> > 2. Capitalizing it is probably wrong, as it's `ARCH=um`
> > 3. Commit 87c9c1631788 ("kunit: tool: add support for QEMU") made it so
> > kunit.py could knowingly run a different arch, yet we'd still always
> > claim "UM".
> >
> Agreed on all counts!
>
> > This patch addresses all of those. E.g.
> >
> > 1.
> > $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py parse .kunit/test.log --json | grep -o '"arch.*' | sort -u
> > "arch": "",
> >
> > 2.
> > $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --json | ...
> > "arch": "um",
> >
> > 3.
> > $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --json --arch=x86_64 | ...
> > "arch": "x86_64",
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
> > ---
>
> Looks good, and works well here. One question/comment below, but in general:
>
> Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
>
> Cheers,
> -- David
>
> > tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py | 4 ++--
> > tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py | 2 ++
> > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py
> > index 7dd6ed42141f..5ccdafd4d5aa 100755
> > --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py
> > +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py
> > @@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ def exec_tests(linux: kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree, request: KunitExecRequest) -
> > test_glob = request.filter_glob.split('.', maxsplit=2)[1]
> > filter_globs = [g + '.'+ test_glob for g in filter_globs]
> >
> > - metadata = kunit_json.Metadata(build_dir=request.build_dir)
> > + metadata = kunit_json.Metadata(arch=linux.arch(), build_dir=request.build_dir)
> >
> > test_counts = kunit_parser.TestCounts()
> > exec_time = 0.0
> > @@ -506,7 +506,7 @@ def main(argv, linux=None):
> > with open(cli_args.file, 'r', errors='backslashreplace') as f:
> > kunit_output = f.read().splitlines()
> > # We know nothing about how the result was created!
> > - metadata = kunit_json.Metadata()
> > + metadata = kunit_json.Metadata(arch='', build_dir='', def_config='')
>
> Why do we explicitly pass empty strings in here, rather than making
> the defaults correct for this case?
Good point, we should just make '' the defaults now.
I'll move the hard-coding of "kunit_defconfig" out of the defaults and
into exec_tests() then.
>
>
> > request = KunitParseRequest(raw_output=cli_args.raw_output,
> > json=cli_args.json)
> > result, _ = parse_tests(request, metadata, kunit_output)
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py
> > index fe159e7ff697..bbbe2ffe30b7 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py
> > +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py
> > @@ -248,6 +248,8 @@ class LinuxSourceTree(object):
> > kconfig = kunit_config.parse_from_string('\n'.join(kconfig_add))
> > self._kconfig.merge_in_entries(kconfig)
> >
> > + def arch(self) -> str:
> > + return self._arch
> >
> > def clean(self) -> bool:
> > try:
> > --
> > 2.35.1.473.g83b2b277ed-goog
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists