[lkml]   [2019]   [Mar]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC v4 00/17] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework

On 2019-03-21 4:07 p.m., Brendan Higgins wrote:
> A couple of points, as for needing CONFIG_PCI; my plan to deal with
> that type of thing has been that we would add support for a KUnit/UML
> version that is just for KUnit. It would mock out the necessary bits
> to provide a fake hardware implementation for anything that might
> depend on it. I wrote a prototype for mocking/faking MMIO that I
> presented to the list here[1]; it is not part of the current patchset
> because we decided it would be best to focus on getting an MVP in, but
> I plan on bringing it back up at some point. Anyway, what do you
> generally think of this approach?

Yes, I was wondering if that might be possible. I think that's a great
approach but it will unfortunately take a lot of work before larger
swaths of the kernel are testable in Kunit with UML. Having more common
mocked infrastructure will be great by-product of it though.

> Awesome, I looked at the code you posted and it doesn't look like you
> have had too many troubles. One thing that stood out to me, why did
> you need to put it in the kunit/ dir?

Yeah, writing the code was super easy. Only after, did I realized I
couldn't get it to easily build.

Putting it in the kunit directory was necessary because nothing in the
NTB tree builds unless CONFIG_NTB is set (see drivers/Makefile) and
CONFIG_NTB depends on CONFIG_PCI. I didn't experiment to see how hard it
would be to set CONFIG_NTB without CONFIG_PCI; I assumed it would be tricky.

> I am looking forward to see what you think!

Generally, I'm impressed and want to see this work in upstream as soon
as possible so I can start to make use of it!


 \ /
  Last update: 2019-03-21 23:27    [W:0.074 / U:3.972 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site