From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: "Jérôme Glisse" <jglisse@redhat.com>,
"Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@mellanox.com>,
"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libnvdimm: Enable unit test infrastructure compile checks
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 09:27:36 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4gLOqgRLiVoVJiSaY=QE=yOO0mg04oDFe+jXRj=G2xJRA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190619112302.GA10534@lst.de>
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 4:23 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 01:52:27PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > The infrastructure to mock core libnvdimm routines for unit testing
> > purposes is prone to bitrot relative to refactoring of that core.
> > Arrange for the unit test core to be built when CONFIG_COMPILE_TEST=y.
> > This does not result in a functional unit test environment, it is only a
> > helper for 0day to catch unit test build regressions.
>
> Looks fine:
>
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
>
> I'm still curious what the point of hiding kernel code in tools/
> is vs fully integrating it with the build system.
The separation of tools/ is due to way the "--wrap=" ldflag behaves.
It can only wrap symbols across a module linking boundary. So to
produce a setup where libnvdimm is ingesting faked responses it all
needs to be built as external modules and relinked.
It's an inelegant way to get some test coverage beyond what qemu-kvm
can do, my hope is that down the road I can use the new Kunit
infrastructure to do something similar in a cleaner / more formal way.
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list
Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
"Jérôme Glisse" <jglisse@redhat.com>,
"Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@mellanox.com>,
"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libnvdimm: Enable unit test infrastructure compile checks
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 09:27:36 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4gLOqgRLiVoVJiSaY=QE=yOO0mg04oDFe+jXRj=G2xJRA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190619112302.GA10534@lst.de>
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 4:23 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 01:52:27PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > The infrastructure to mock core libnvdimm routines for unit testing
> > purposes is prone to bitrot relative to refactoring of that core.
> > Arrange for the unit test core to be built when CONFIG_COMPILE_TEST=y.
> > This does not result in a functional unit test environment, it is only a
> > helper for 0day to catch unit test build regressions.
>
> Looks fine:
>
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
>
> I'm still curious what the point of hiding kernel code in tools/
> is vs fully integrating it with the build system.
The separation of tools/ is due to way the "--wrap=" ldflag behaves.
It can only wrap symbols across a module linking boundary. So to
produce a setup where libnvdimm is ingesting faked responses it all
needs to be built as external modules and relinked.
It's an inelegant way to get some test coverage beyond what qemu-kvm
can do, my hope is that down the road I can use the new Kunit
infrastructure to do something similar in a cleaner / more formal way.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-19 16:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-17 20:52 [PATCH] libnvdimm: Enable unit test infrastructure compile checks Dan Williams
2019-06-19 11:23 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-06-19 11:23 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-06-19 16:27 ` Dan Williams [this message]
2019-06-19 16:27 ` Dan Williams
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAPcyv4gLOqgRLiVoVJiSaY=QE=yOO0mg04oDFe+jXRj=G2xJRA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jgg@mellanox.com \
--cc=jglisse@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.