On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 11:00 AM Shuah Khan <sk...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On 4/2/21 3:32 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> >> TL;DR
> >> $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=lib/kunit
> >>
> >> Per suggestion from Ted [1], we can reduce the amount of typing by
> >> assuming a convention that these files are named '.kunitconfig'.
> >>
> >> In the case of [1], we now have
> >> $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=fs/ext4
> >>
> >> Also add in such a fragment for kunit itself so we can give that as an
> >> example more close to home (and thus less likely to be accidentally
> >> broken).
> >>
> >> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/ycnf4yp1db97z...@mit.edu/
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlaty...@google.com>
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhigg...@google.com>
> >
>
> Should this be captured in documentation. Especially since this
> is file is .* file.
>
> Do you want to include doc in this patch? Might be better that way.
It definitely should be documented, yes.
The only real example hadn't landed yet when I sent this patch
(fs/ext4/.kunitconfig was going in through the ext4 tree), but now
it's in linus/master.
There's still some uncertainties about what best practices for this
feature should be, i.e.
* how granular should these be?
* how should configs in parent dirs be handled? Should they be
supersets of all the subdirs?
* E.g. should fs/.kunitconfig be a superset of
fs/ext4/.kunitconfig and any other hypothetical subdir configs?
* Should we wait on saying "you should do this" until we have
"import" statements/other mechanisms to make this less manual?
* how should we handle non-UML tests, like the KASAN tests?
* ideally, kunit.py run will eventually support running tests on x86
(using qemu)
If it's fine with you, I was hoping to come back and add a section to
kunit/start.rst when we've had some of those questions more figured
out.
>
> thanks,
> -- Shuah
