[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <81c79e52-4e77-45c8-bc42-00b5d096d6d9@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 14:11:33 -0700
From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>
CC: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@...labora.com>, Shuah Khan
<shuah@...nel.org>, <davidgow@...gle.com>, "open list : KERNEL SELFTEST
FRAMEWORK" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, open list
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <kunit-dev@...glegroups.com>,
"kernel@...labora.com" <kernel@...labora.com>
Subject: Re: Converting kselftest test modules to kunit
On 7/16/24 11:26 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 11:04:06AM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
>> This is a classic case of testing a kernel API via ioctl into the
>> kernel, so I think it meets your criteria for moving to KUnit.
>> Having said that, I must now go try out KUnit in a bit more depth
>> before I'm sure that this will work out. But it should.
>
> I've found the docs really helpful:
> https://docs.kernel.org/dev-tools/kunit/
>
> Searching for *_kunit.c will also give a lot of examples. And the kunit
> folks are really responsive to questions, helping guide finding solutions
> to novel testing needs, etc. :)
>
OK, yes very helpful. I guess I've got some unique biases, because I
found it extremely odd to put so much emphasis on the arch=UM, as
opposed to loading a kunit kernel module on baremetal and running
tests there. I mean, yes, VMs or user mode Linux have their place,
but baremetal testing is really important (and in many cases, the
only way).
Anyway, this confirms for me that kunit should work perfectly for
converting mm/gup_test.
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
Powered by blists - more mailing lists