From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf1-f169.google.com (mail-pf1-f169.google.com [209.85.210.169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11D63211935B9 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 19:02:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pf1-f169.google.com with SMTP id q1so3709096pfi.5 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 19:02:19 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 19:02:15 -0800 From: Luis Chamberlain Subject: Re: [RFC v3 01/19] kunit: test: add KUnit test runner core Message-ID: <20181201030215.GJ28501@garbanzo.do-not-panic.com> References: <20181128193636.254378-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> <20181128193636.254378-2-brendanhiggins@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181128193636.254378-2-brendanhiggins@google.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: linux-nvdimm-bounces@lists.01.org Sender: "Linux-nvdimm" To: Brendan Higgins Cc: brakmo@fb.com, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com, shuah@kernel.org, robh@kernel.org, frowand.list@gmail.com, linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, richard@nod.at, knut.omang@oracle.com, kieran.bingham@ideasonboard.com, joel@jms.id.au, jdike@addtoit.com, Petr Mladek , Tim.Bird@sony.com, keescook@google.com, linux-um@lists.infradead.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, julia.lawall@lip6.fr, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, daniel@ffwll.ch, mpe@ellerman.id.au, joe@perches.com, khilman@baylibre.com List-ID: On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:36:18AM -0800, Brendan Higgins wrote: > +int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_module *module) > +{ > + bool all_passed = true, success; > + struct kunit_case *test_case; > + struct kunit test; > + int ret; > + > + ret = kunit_init_test(&test, module->name); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + > + for (test_case = module->test_cases; test_case->run_case; test_case++) { > + success = kunit_run_case(&test, module, test_case); We are running test cases serially, why not address testing asynchronously, this way tests can also be paralellized when possible, therefore decreasing test time even further. Would that mess up the printing/log stuff somehow? Luis _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFD2CC04EB8 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2018 03:02:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89D0F2145D for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2018 03:02:21 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 89D0F2145D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726702AbeLAONq (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Dec 2018 09:13:46 -0500 Received: from mail-pf1-f176.google.com ([209.85.210.176]:37211 "EHLO mail-pf1-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726637AbeLAONq (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Dec 2018 09:13:46 -0500 Received: by mail-pf1-f176.google.com with SMTP id y126so3715651pfb.4; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 19:02:20 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=Y8FFqlo+hs5jsQ9Y7l6rpCXKk9O09swMpG6+1RK/fCg=; b=TI+EkpGpCGpNq2mDJCgVTtVxLx2Q+7uaUr0yU0wd+rLfF8rxNnuIQDxdybPp3cQWzA ub0MvotVLTI4/OS3fxlmJjPXibXTlo5n5XvELptxJUXpmmBPimUcMq7YahuNAmejJtqQ hfH5jmXMsHukvwaj/Vho5XhubweDoJdtLUpwKYnQrMBTcH3YxLtWnskOpp8iHCwtRWy4 jh9lNkVj/MAPGLueLuiSrhhOAuArfiwG2totPpG0wmeFgFNz7x7lI0Ma521LslO9CpzR fXvwPy7f4ChgprVLwtR4T69hV0WxLzi1BvLDyXMu9XjIuoMkPUvFsHsHkX+BdKaxxEYj AzkQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWbGrqlJekMZCsFrqpSsHYlrytItG0nj02C3eIe7iRfnpwVu8fUL NANQL+4ZaXVP1M+JrGpnU+4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/UG09HxftfijPmsXT2rNLX7wlL/Vs1t3kQqLG9nVsFe3m4niFPnTyhorK0ItoofppSsekL9EA== X-Received: by 2002:a62:ea09:: with SMTP id t9mr3076526pfh.228.1543633339449; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 19:02:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from garbanzo.do-not-panic.com (c-73-71-40-85.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [73.71.40.85]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n68sm10221567pfb.62.2018.11.30.19.02.16 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Fri, 30 Nov 2018 19:02:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by garbanzo.do-not-panic.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 30 Nov 2018 19:02:15 -0800 Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 19:02:15 -0800 From: Luis Chamberlain To: Brendan Higgins Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, keescook@google.com, shuah@kernel.org, joel@jms.id.au, mpe@ellerman.id.au, joe@perches.com, brakmo@fb.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, Tim.Bird@sony.com, khilman@baylibre.com, julia.lawall@lip6.fr, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jdike@addtoit.com, richard@nod.at, linux-um@lists.infradead.org, daniel@ffwll.ch, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, robh@kernel.org, dan.j.williams@intel.com, linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, kieran.bingham@ideasonboard.com, frowand.list@gmail.com, knut.omang@oracle.com, Petr Mladek , alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com Subject: Re: [RFC v3 01/19] kunit: test: add KUnit test runner core Message-ID: <20181201030215.GJ28501@garbanzo.do-not-panic.com> References: <20181128193636.254378-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> <20181128193636.254378-2-brendanhiggins@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181128193636.254378-2-brendanhiggins@google.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:36:18AM -0800, Brendan Higgins wrote: > +int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_module *module) > +{ > + bool all_passed = true, success; > + struct kunit_case *test_case; > + struct kunit test; > + int ret; > + > + ret = kunit_init_test(&test, module->name); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + > + for (test_case = module->test_cases; test_case->run_case; test_case++) { > + success = kunit_run_case(&test, module, test_case); We are running test cases serially, why not address testing asynchronously, this way tests can also be paralellized when possible, therefore decreasing test time even further. Would that mess up the printing/log stuff somehow? Luis From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mcgrof at kernel.org (Luis Chamberlain) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 19:02:15 -0800 Subject: [RFC v3 01/19] kunit: test: add KUnit test runner core In-Reply-To: <20181128193636.254378-2-brendanhiggins@google.com> References: <20181128193636.254378-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> <20181128193636.254378-2-brendanhiggins@google.com> Message-ID: <20181201030215.GJ28501@garbanzo.do-not-panic.com> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:36:18AM -0800, Brendan Higgins wrote: > +int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_module *module) > +{ > + bool all_passed = true, success; > + struct kunit_case *test_case; > + struct kunit test; > + int ret; > + > + ret = kunit_init_test(&test, module->name); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + > + for (test_case = module->test_cases; test_case->run_case; test_case++) { > + success = kunit_run_case(&test, module, test_case); We are running test cases serially, why not address testing asynchronously, this way tests can also be paralellized when possible, therefore decreasing test time even further. Would that mess up the printing/log stuff somehow? Luis From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mcgrof@kernel.org (Luis Chamberlain) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 19:02:15 -0800 Subject: [RFC v3 01/19] kunit: test: add KUnit test runner core In-Reply-To: <20181128193636.254378-2-brendanhiggins@google.com> References: <20181128193636.254378-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> <20181128193636.254378-2-brendanhiggins@google.com> Message-ID: <20181201030215.GJ28501@garbanzo.do-not-panic.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Message-ID: <20181201030215.qGEE1BxzcL6sTs1mK0ZhZ0tPveKG3Q0Y-COzjljIKt8@z> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018@11:36:18AM -0800, Brendan Higgins wrote: > +int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_module *module) > +{ > + bool all_passed = true, success; > + struct kunit_case *test_case; > + struct kunit test; > + int ret; > + > + ret = kunit_init_test(&test, module->name); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + > + for (test_case = module->test_cases; test_case->run_case; test_case++) { > + success = kunit_run_case(&test, module, test_case); We are running test cases serially, why not address testing asynchronously, this way tests can also be paralellized when possible, therefore decreasing test time even further. Would that mess up the printing/log stuff somehow? Luis From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf1-f176.google.com ([209.85.210.176]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1gSvY6-0002Bd-Kr for linux-um@lists.infradead.org; Sat, 01 Dec 2018 03:02:31 +0000 Received: by mail-pf1-f176.google.com with SMTP id i12so3704644pfo.7 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 19:02:20 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 19:02:15 -0800 From: Luis Chamberlain Subject: Re: [RFC v3 01/19] kunit: test: add KUnit test runner core Message-ID: <20181201030215.GJ28501@garbanzo.do-not-panic.com> References: <20181128193636.254378-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> <20181128193636.254378-2-brendanhiggins@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181128193636.254378-2-brendanhiggins@google.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-um" Errors-To: linux-um-bounces+geert=linux-m68k.org@lists.infradead.org To: Brendan Higgins Cc: brakmo@fb.com, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com, shuah@kernel.org, robh@kernel.org, frowand.list@gmail.com, linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, richard@nod.at, knut.omang@oracle.com, kieran.bingham@ideasonboard.com, joel@jms.id.au, jdike@addtoit.com, Petr Mladek , Tim.Bird@sony.com, keescook@google.com, linux-um@lists.infradead.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, julia.lawall@lip6.fr, dan.j.williams@intel.com, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, daniel@ffwll.ch, mpe@ellerman.id.au, joe@perches.com, khilman@baylibre.com On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:36:18AM -0800, Brendan Higgins wrote: > +int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_module *module) > +{ > + bool all_passed = true, success; > + struct kunit_case *test_case; > + struct kunit test; > + int ret; > + > + ret = kunit_init_test(&test, module->name); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + > + for (test_case = module->test_cases; test_case->run_case; test_case++) { > + success = kunit_run_case(&test, module, test_case); We are running test cases serially, why not address testing asynchronously, this way tests can also be paralellized when possible, therefore decreasing test time even further. Would that mess up the printing/log stuff somehow? Luis _______________________________________________ linux-um mailing list linux-um@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um