[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250917151107.GF1326709@ziepe.ca>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2025 12:11:07 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: Mostafa Saleh <smostafa@...gle.com>
Cc: iommu@...ts.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, robin.murphy@....com, will@...nel.org,
joro@...tes.org, praan@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Move io-pgtable-arm selftest to KUnit
On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 03:00:55PM +0000, Mostafa Saleh wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 11:44:35AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 02:02:01PM +0000, Mostafa Saleh wrote:
> > > Instead, we can remove the __init constraint, and be able to run the tests
> > > on-demand, and possibly compile it as a module.
> >
> > I think you can just put the kunit in a module to avoid all this?
>
> Yes, I don’t see the point of trying to run everything from __init,
> relaxing that allows us to use more of the kunit infrastructure.
> But, it’s more code to do so (it’s just longer to explain :)),
> I can add a patch in between, modularizing the selftest before kunit.
Sounds good, also it would be good to include the kunit.py
instructions in the commit message:
Eg this is one from my iommpt series:
tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --build_dir build_kunit_arm64 --arch arm64 --make_options LLVM=-19 --kunitconfig ./drivers/iommu/generic_pt/.kunitconfig
You can run that from x86, which is really how I'd recommend anyone
actually use this kunit rather than booting a live system and trying
to run the test before the system boots enough to explode on a buggy
implementation :)
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists