Hi Rae,
Em Thu, 13 Jul 2023 17:31:19 -0400 Rae Moar rmoar@google.com escreveu:
On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 10:29 AM Mauro Carvalho Chehab mchehab@kernel.org wrote:
As an example for the new documentation tool, add a documentation for drm_buddy_test.
I opted to place this on a completely different directory, in order to make easier to test the feature with:
$ make SPHINXDIRS="tests" htmldocsSigned-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab mchehab@kernel.org
To avoid mailbombing on a large number of people, only mailing lists were C/C on the cover. See [PATCH RFC 0/2] at: https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1689171160.git.mchehab@kernel.org/
Documentation/index.rst | 2 +- Documentation/tests/index.rst | 6 ++++++ Documentation/tests/kunit.rst | 5 +++++ drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_buddy_test.c | 12 ++++++++++++ 4 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 Documentation/tests/index.rst create mode 100644 Documentation/tests/kunit.rst
diff --git a/Documentation/index.rst b/Documentation/index.rst index 9dfdc826618c..80a6ce14a61a 100644 --- a/Documentation/index.rst +++ b/Documentation/index.rst @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ Various other manuals with useful information for all kernel developers. fault-injection/index livepatch/index rust/index
- test/index
User-oriented documentation
diff --git a/Documentation/tests/index.rst b/Documentation/tests/index.rst new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..bfc39eb5c0aa --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/tests/index.rst @@ -0,0 +1,6 @@ +======================== +Kunit documentation test +========================
+.. toctree::
- kunit
diff --git a/Documentation/tests/kunit.rst b/Documentation/tests/kunit.rst new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..6ffc151988a0 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/tests/kunit.rst @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ +Kunit tests +-----------
+.. include-test:: drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_buddy_test.c
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_buddy_test.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_buddy_test.c index 09ee6f6af896..dd6c5afd6cd6 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_buddy_test.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_buddy_test.c @@ -737,6 +737,18 @@ static int drm_buddy_suite_init(struct kunit_suite *suite) return 0; }
+/**
- KTEST_SUITE: set of tests for drm buddy alloc
- Scope: drm subsystem
- Mega feature: drm
- Feature: buddy_alloc
- KTEST_TEST: drm_test_buddy_alloc_%s
- Description: Run DRM buddy allocation %arg[1] test
- arg[1].values: limit, range, optimistic, smoke, pathological
- */
Hi!
This is such a cool patch series. I just have a few comments related to the output.
Thank you for your comments! Sorry for not answering earlier. I took some vacations and this series ended sleeping over other tasks on my todo list.
Also, before sending another version, I wanted to have the test_list.py changes to make it generic enough to be merged on IGT, to avoid having a fork of it. Those got merged today.
In the html output the tests are listed as: ktest@drm_buddy_test@…
I wonder if instead of using the file name of “drm_buddy_test” this could possibly be the suite name, “drm_buddy”, as this is what users will call when using kunit.py to run the tests. Although "drm_buddy_test" is also the module name so I don't mind it too much. But in the future the file name and module name are not guaranteed to be the same for other tests.
Most preferably, there would be a reference to the kunit suite name, file name, and the module name.
I guess it shouldn't be hard to do such change in a way that it won't affect its usage on IGT. We need to define what would be the best pattern. As this can be used for both kunit and selftests, I would place kunit at the beginning.
Currently, we're using:
kunit@<base file name without .c>@<test_name>
Some possible patterns would be:
kunit@<base file name without .c>@<suite name>@<test_name> kunit@<subsystem>@<base file name without .c>@<suite name>@<test_name> kunit@<subsystem>@<suite name>@<test_name>
Would do you think it would work best?
This may be difficult to implement as these can all differ. I am currently working on the KUnit Attribute framework which saves the module name and I am thinking about also saving the file path as a future attribute. This could be a helpful framework for the KUnit tests specifically.
I am not sure how easy it would be to access c objects/functions using this system.
I would prefer not. C language allows lots of flexibility with macros, making it hard to write a parser to read those C objects from the source. We have this at kernel-doc. As one of the people that did some work there, I can say that that several tricks are needed to keep this working.
On the other hand, it should be easy to use the TestList class from test_list.py at kunit.py.
So, kunit.py could use the data that came from the documentation directly.
Finally, I was wondering if it is the intention to put a list of all kunit tests that use this new feature into tests/kunit.rst or would this be broken up in some way
IMO, it makes sense to break this per subsystem, and have an auto-generated index.rst pointing to the entire set of documents.
We're already storing the subsystem at the documentation macros, so, IMO, it should shouldn't be hard to implement it.
Regards, Mauro
On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 3:11 AM Mauro Carvalho Chehab mchehab@kernel.org wrote:
Hi Rae,
Em Thu, 13 Jul 2023 17:31:19 -0400 Rae Moar rmoar@google.com escreveu:
On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 10:29 AM Mauro Carvalho Chehab mchehab@kernel.org wrote:
As an example for the new documentation tool, add a documentation for drm_buddy_test.
I opted to place this on a completely different directory, in order to make easier to test the feature with:
$ make SPHINXDIRS="tests" htmldocsSigned-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab mchehab@kernel.org
To avoid mailbombing on a large number of people, only mailing lists were C/C on the cover. See [PATCH RFC 0/2] at: https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1689171160.git.mchehab@kernel.org/
Documentation/index.rst | 2 +- Documentation/tests/index.rst | 6 ++++++ Documentation/tests/kunit.rst | 5 +++++ drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_buddy_test.c | 12 ++++++++++++ 4 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 Documentation/tests/index.rst create mode 100644 Documentation/tests/kunit.rst
diff --git a/Documentation/index.rst b/Documentation/index.rst index 9dfdc826618c..80a6ce14a61a 100644 --- a/Documentation/index.rst +++ b/Documentation/index.rst @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ Various other manuals with useful information for all kernel developers. fault-injection/index livepatch/index rust/index
- test/index
User-oriented documentation
diff --git a/Documentation/tests/index.rst b/Documentation/tests/index.rst new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..bfc39eb5c0aa --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/tests/index.rst @@ -0,0 +1,6 @@ +======================== +Kunit documentation test +========================
+.. toctree::
- kunit
diff --git a/Documentation/tests/kunit.rst b/Documentation/tests/kunit.rst new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..6ffc151988a0 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/tests/kunit.rst @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ +Kunit tests +-----------
+.. include-test:: drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_buddy_test.c
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_buddy_test.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_buddy_test.c index 09ee6f6af896..dd6c5afd6cd6 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_buddy_test.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_buddy_test.c @@ -737,6 +737,18 @@ static int drm_buddy_suite_init(struct kunit_suite *suite) return 0; }
+/**
- KTEST_SUITE: set of tests for drm buddy alloc
- Scope: drm subsystem
- Mega feature: drm
- Feature: buddy_alloc
- KTEST_TEST: drm_test_buddy_alloc_%s
- Description: Run DRM buddy allocation %arg[1] test
- arg[1].values: limit, range, optimistic, smoke, pathological
- */
Hi!
This is such a cool patch series. I just have a few comments related to the output.
Thank you for your comments! Sorry for not answering earlier. I took some vacations and this series ended sleeping over other tasks on my todo list.
Also, before sending another version, I wanted to have the test_list.py changes to make it generic enough to be merged on IGT, to avoid having a fork of it. Those got merged today.
Hi Mauro!
No worries at all!
In the html output the tests are listed as: ktest@drm_buddy_test@…
I wonder if instead of using the file name of “drm_buddy_test” this could possibly be the suite name, “drm_buddy”, as this is what users will call when using kunit.py to run the tests. Although "drm_buddy_test" is also the module name so I don't mind it too much. But in the future the file name and module name are not guaranteed to be the same for other tests.
Most preferably, there would be a reference to the kunit suite name, file name, and the module name.
I guess it shouldn't be hard to do such change in a way that it won't affect its usage on IGT. We need to define what would be the best pattern. As this can be used for both kunit and selftests, I would place kunit at the beginning.
Currently, we're using:
kunit@<base file name without .c>@<test_name>Some possible patterns would be:
kunit@<base file name without .c>@<suite name>@<test_name> kunit@<subsystem>@<base file name without .c>@<suite name>@<test_name> kunit@<subsystem>@<suite name>@<test_name>Would do you think it would work best?
How possible is it to separate out the file and suite name as headers? I think that this could reduce some of the repetition.
If we are already separating documentation pages by subsystem, a potential format could be:
File: <base file>
<kunit_or_kselftest> suite: <suite name> List of Tests: <test name> <test name> ...
What do you think?
This may be difficult to implement as these can all differ. I am currently working on the KUnit Attribute framework which saves the module name and I am thinking about also saving the file path as a future attribute. This could be a helpful framework for the KUnit tests specifically.
I am not sure how easy it would be to access c objects/functions using this system.
I would prefer not. C language allows lots of flexibility with macros, making it hard to write a parser to read those C objects from the source. We have this at kernel-doc. As one of the people that did some work there, I can say that that several tricks are needed to keep this working.
On the other hand, it should be easy to use the TestList class from test_list.py at kunit.py.
So, kunit.py could use the data that came from the documentation directly.
Got it. So it is possible to get some of this info. Thanks!
Finally, I was wondering if it is the intention to put a list of all kunit tests that use this new feature into tests/kunit.rst or would this be broken up in some way
IMO, it makes sense to break this per subsystem, and have an auto-generated index.rst pointing to the entire set of documents.
We're already storing the subsystem at the documentation macros, so, IMO, it should shouldn't be hard to implement it.
Regards, Mauro
I think breaking this up by subsystems sounds like a good idea, especially since we still have them documented already.
Thanks for your responses! -Rae
linux-kselftest-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Mauro Carvalho Chehab -
Rae Moar