Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] kunit: tool: fix running kunit_tool from outside kernel tree

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 10:45 PM David Gow davidgow@google.com wrote:

On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 9:17 AM Brendan Higgins brendanhiggins@google.com wrote:

...

Currently kunit_tool does not work correctly when executed from a path outside of the kernel tree, so make sure that the current working directory is correct and the kunit_dir is properly initialized before running.

Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins brendanhiggins@google.com

tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)

diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py index 425ef40067e7..96344a11ff1f 100755 --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py @@ -237,9 +237,14 @@ def main(argv, linux=None):

    cli_args = parser.parse_args(argv)

•   if get_kernel_root_path():
  

•           print('cd ' + get_kernel_root_path())
  

Do we want to print this, or is it a leftover debug statement?

Whoops, I was supposed to delete that. That's embarrassing... ^_^;

...

•           os.chdir(get_kernel_root_path())
  

•   if cli_args.subcommand == 'run':
            if not os.path.exists(cli_args.build_dir):
                    os.mkdir(cli_args.build_dir)
  

•                   create_default_kunitconfig()
  

Why are we adding this everywhere when it's already in config_tests, which should already be called in all of the places where a kunitconfig is required?

Ah yes, .kunitconfig needs to be created before config_tests() can be called because the LinuxSourceTree constructor needs .kunitconfig to exist.

Is the goal to always copy the default kunitconfig when creating a new build_dir? While I can sort-of see why we might want to do that, if the build dir doesn't exist, most of the subcommands will fail anyway (maybe we should only create the build-dir for 'config' and 'run'?)

I just did it because we were getting a failure in a constructor so we couldn't do much. Ideally we would check that the current state allows for the command that the user intended to run, but I think that's beyond the scope of this change.

So I guess the real question is: Is it okay for it to crash in the constructor with a cryptic error message for now, or do we want to let it fail with a slightly less cryptic message later?

...

            if not linux:
                    linux = kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree()

@@ -257,6 +262,7 @@ def main(argv, linux=None): if cli_args.build_dir: if not os.path.exists(cli_args.build_dir): os.mkdir(cli_args.build_dir)

•                           create_default_kunitconfig()
  
            if not linux:
                    linux = kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree()
  

@@ -273,6 +279,7 @@ def main(argv, linux=None): if cli_args.build_dir: if not os.path.exists(cli_args.build_dir): os.mkdir(cli_args.build_dir)

•                           create_default_kunitconfig()
  
            if not linux:
                    linux = kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree()
  

@@ -291,6 +298,7 @@ def main(argv, linux=None): if cli_args.build_dir: if not os.path.exists(cli_args.build_dir): os.mkdir(cli_args.build_dir)

•                           create_default_kunitconfig()
  
            if not linux:
                    linux = kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree()
  
  

base-commit: 30185b69a2d533c4ba6ca926b8390ce7de495e29

2.28.0.236.gb10cc79966-goog