[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGS_qxq_vFtGS4BGieZz8L3QH7rZ7ZN25pGYmjWWoXbTGOKC9A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2022 11:35:36 -0500
From: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
To: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Cc: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
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>, maxime@...no.tech
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: kunit: update kconfig options needed for
UML coverage
On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 9:56 PM David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com> wrote:
>
<snip>
> > # Append coverage options to the current config
> > - $ echo -e "CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL=y\nCONFIG_DEBUG_INFO=y\nCONFIG_GCOV=y" >> .kunit/.kunitconfig
> > + $ echo -e "CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL=y\nCONFIG_DEBUG_INFO=y\nCONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_DWARF_TOOLCHAIN_DEFAULT=y\nCONFIG_GCOV=y" >> .kunit/.kunitconfig
> > $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run
>
> Would we want to instead use a chain of --kconfig_add arguments? (I
> think there are advantages either way...)
I've been considering this ever since the --kconfig_add patch was accepted.
It's more compatible w/ commands using --kunitconfig, but it also
looks very verbose.
E.g. it looks like
$ tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --make_options=CC=/usr/bin/gcc-6
--kconfig_add=CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO=y
--kconfig_add=CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_DWARF_TOOLCHAIN_DEFAULT=y
--kconfig_add=CONFIG_GCOV=y
Neither looks very appealing to me, so I've just kept it as-is for now.
Maybe there's something we can do to make this easier (e.g. allowing
--kunitconfig to be repeated and mergable)?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists