On 30/11/2018 03:14, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:36:18AM -0800, Brendan Higgins wrote:
+#define module_test(module) \
static int module_kunit_init##module(void) \{ \return kunit_run_tests(&module); \} \late_initcall(module_kunit_init##module)Here in lies an assumption that suffices. I'm inclined to believe we need new initcall level here so to ensure we *do* run after all the respective kernels iniut calls. Otherwise we're left at the whims of link order for kunit. For instance if a kunit test relies on frameworks which are also late_initcall() we'd have complete incompatibility with anything linked *after* kunit.
diff --git a/kunit/Kconfig b/kunit/Kconfig new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000..49b44c4f6630a --- /dev/null +++ b/kunit/Kconfig @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +# +# KUnit base configuration +#
+menu "KUnit support"
+config KUNIT
- bool "Enable support for unit tests (KUnit)"
- depends on UML
Consider using:
if UML ... endif
That allows the depends to be done once.
- help
Enables support for kernel unit tests (KUnit), a lightweight unittesting and mocking framework for the Linux kernel. These tests areable to be run locally on a developer's workstation without a VM orspecial hardware.Some mention of UML may be good here?
For more information, please see
Documentation/kunit/+endmenu
I'm a bit conflicted here. This currently depends on UML but yet you noted on RFC v2 that your intention is to liberate kunit from UML and ideally allow unit tests to depend only on userspace. I've addressed tests using both selftests kernels drivers and also re-written kernel APIs to userspace to test there. I think we may need to live with both.
Then for the UML stuff, I think if we *really* accept that UML will always be a viable option we should probably consider now throwing these things under drivers/platform/uml/. This follows the pattern of arch specific drivers. Whether or not we end up with a complete userspace
UML platform drivers predate that and are under arch/um/drivers/
We should either keep to current convention or consider relocating the existing ones - having things spread in different places around the tree is not good in the long run (UML already has a few of those under the x86 tree, let's not increase the number).
component independent of UML may implicate having a shared component somewhere else.
Likewise, I realize the goal is to *avoid* using a virtual machine for these tests, but would it in any way make sense to share kunit to be supported for other architectures to allow easier-to-write tests as well?
Luis
linux-um mailing list linux-um@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um