On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 05:48:07PM +0800, David Gow wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 at 15:38, Thomas Weißschuh thomas.weissschuh@linutronix.de wrote:
Show that the selftests are executed from a fairly "normal" userspace context.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh thomas.weissschuh@linutronix.de
This is good. I'm not 100% sure the example test is the best place for it, though.
Would it make more sense to either have this:
- in the main kunit test (since it's really _verifying_ the KUnit
environment, rather than documenting it)
- in a separate kunit-uapi test (if we want to keep some separation
between the UAPI and entirely in-kernel tests)
- in a separate procfs test (since it tests procfs functionality as
much as it's testing the KUnit environment)
Originally this change was really meant as an example for users. But moving it into the main kunit test probably makes more sense.
Personally, my gut feeling is the main kunit-test is the best place for this, even if it means spinning up a separate file is best here.
Ack.
As for the actual implementation, though, that looks fine to me. A few small comments below, but nothing particularly important.
Reviewed-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com
Cheers, -- David
lib/kunit/kunit-example-uapi.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/lib/kunit/kunit-example-uapi.c b/lib/kunit/kunit-example-uapi.c index 4ce657050dd4a576632a41ca0309c4cb5134ce14..5e7a0f3b68f182c42b03e667567e66f02d8c2b86 100644 --- a/lib/kunit/kunit-example-uapi.c +++ b/lib/kunit/kunit-example-uapi.c @@ -8,13 +8,45 @@
- This is *userspace* code.
*/
+#include <fcntl.h> +#include <unistd.h> +#include <string.h>
#include "../../tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.h"
+static void test_procfs(void) +{
char buf[256];ssize_t r;int fd;fd = open("/proc/self/comm", O_RDONLY);if (fd == -1) {ksft_test_result_fail("procfs: open() failed: %s\n", strerror(errno));return;}r = read(fd, buf, sizeof(buf));close(fd);if (r == -1) {ksft_test_result_fail("procfs: read() failed: %s\n", strerror(errno));return;}Do we want to use TASK_COMM_LEN rather than hardcoding 16 below?
(And, if so, do we need something more complicated in case it's not 16?)
TASK_COMM_LEN is not part of the UAPI headers. But I don't think it can ever change.
if (r != 16 || strncmp("kunit-example-u\n", buf, 16) != 0) {ksft_test_result_fail("procfs: incorrect comm\n");return;}ksft_test_result_pass("procfs\n");+}
int main(void) { ksft_print_header(); ksft_set_plan(4);
ksft_test_result_pass("userspace test 1\n");
test_procfs(); ksft_test_result_pass("userspace test 2\n"); ksft_test_result_skip("userspace test 3: some reason\n"); ksft_test_result_pass("userspace test 4\n");-- 2.49.0