From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Frank Rowand Subject: Re: [RFC v4 00/17] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 12:02:24 -0800 Message-ID: References: <20190214213729.21702-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20190214213729.21702-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Brendan Higgins , keescook@google.com, mcgrof@kernel.org, shuah@kernel.org, robh@kernel.org, kieran.bingham@ideasonboard.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.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, dan.j.williams@intel.com, linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, knut.omang@oracle.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, pmladek@suse.com, Alexander.Levin@microsoft.com, amir73il@gmail.com, dan.carpenter@oracle.com, wfg@linux.intel.com List-Id: linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org On 2/14/19 1:37 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote: > This patch set proposes KUnit, a lightweight unit testing and mocking > framework for the Linux kernel. > > Unlike Autotest and kselftest, KUnit is a true unit testing framework; > it does not require installing the kernel on a test machine or in a VM > and does not require tests to be written in userspace running on a host > kernel. Additionally, KUnit is fast: From invocation to completion KUnit > can run several dozen tests in under a second. Currently, the entire > KUnit test suite for KUnit runs in under a second from the initial > invocation (build time excluded). > > KUnit is heavily inspired by JUnit, Python's unittest.mock, and > Googletest/Googlemock for C++. KUnit provides facilities for defining > unit test cases, grouping related test cases into test suites, providing > common infrastructure for running tests, mocking, spying, and much more. > > ## What's so special about unit testing? > > A unit test is supposed to test a single unit of code in isolation, > hence the name. There should be no dependencies outside the control of > the test; this means no external dependencies, which makes tests orders > of magnitudes faster. Likewise, since there are no external dependencies, > there are no hoops to jump through to run the tests. Additionally, this > makes unit tests deterministic: a failing unit test always indicates a > problem. Finally, because unit tests necessarily have finer granularity, > they are able to test all code paths easily solving the classic problem > of difficulty in exercising error handling code. > > ## Is KUnit trying to replace other testing frameworks for the kernel? > > No. Most existing tests for the Linux kernel are end-to-end tests, which > have their place. A well tested system has lots of unit tests, a > reasonable number of integration tests, and some end-to-end tests. KUnit > is just trying to address the unit test space which is currently not > being addressed. > > ## More information on KUnit > > There is a bunch of documentation near the end of this patch set that > describes how to use KUnit and best practices for writing unit tests. > For convenience I am hosting the compiled docs here: > https://google.github.io/kunit-docs/third_party/kernel/docs/ > Additionally for convenience, I have applied these patches to a branch: > https://kunit.googlesource.com/linux/+/kunit/rfc/5.0-rc5/v4 > The repo may be cloned with: > git clone https://kunit.googlesource.com/linux > This patchset is on the kunit/rfc/5.0-rc5/v4 branch. > > ## Changes Since Last Version > > - Got KUnit working on (hypothetically) all architectures (tested on > x86), as per Rob's (and other's) request > - Punting all KUnit features/patches depending on UML for now. > - Broke out UML specific support into arch/um/* as per "[RFC v3 01/19] > kunit: test: add KUnit test runner core", as requested by Luis. > - Added support to kunit_tool to allow it to build kernels in external > directories, as suggested by Kieran. > - Added a UML defconfig, and a config fragment for KUnit as suggested > by Kieran and Luis. > - Cleaned up, and reformatted a bunch of stuff. > I have not read through the patches in any detail. I have read some of the code to try to understand the patches to the devicetree unit tests. So that may limit how valid my comments below are. I found the code difficult to read in places where it should have been much simpler to read. Structuring the code in a pseudo object oriented style meant that everywhere in a code path that I encountered a dynamic function call, I had to go find where that dynamic function call was initialized (and being the cautious person that I am, verify that no where else was the value of that dynamic function call). With primitive vi and tags, that search would have instead just been a simple key press (or at worst a few keys) if hard coded function calls were done instead of dynamic function calls. In the code paths that I looked at, I did not see any case of a dynamic function being anything other than the value it was originally initialized as. There may be such cases, I did not read the entire patch set. There may also be cases envisioned in the architects mind of how this flexibility may be of future value. Dunno. -Frank From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: frowand.list at gmail.com (Frank Rowand) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 12:02:24 -0800 Subject: [RFC v4 00/17] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework In-Reply-To: <20190214213729.21702-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> References: <20190214213729.21702-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> Message-ID: On 2/14/19 1:37 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote: > This patch set proposes KUnit, a lightweight unit testing and mocking > framework for the Linux kernel. > > Unlike Autotest and kselftest, KUnit is a true unit testing framework; > it does not require installing the kernel on a test machine or in a VM > and does not require tests to be written in userspace running on a host > kernel. Additionally, KUnit is fast: From invocation to completion KUnit > can run several dozen tests in under a second. Currently, the entire > KUnit test suite for KUnit runs in under a second from the initial > invocation (build time excluded). > > KUnit is heavily inspired by JUnit, Python's unittest.mock, and > Googletest/Googlemock for C++. KUnit provides facilities for defining > unit test cases, grouping related test cases into test suites, providing > common infrastructure for running tests, mocking, spying, and much more. > > ## What's so special about unit testing? > > A unit test is supposed to test a single unit of code in isolation, > hence the name. There should be no dependencies outside the control of > the test; this means no external dependencies, which makes tests orders > of magnitudes faster. Likewise, since there are no external dependencies, > there are no hoops to jump through to run the tests. Additionally, this > makes unit tests deterministic: a failing unit test always indicates a > problem. Finally, because unit tests necessarily have finer granularity, > they are able to test all code paths easily solving the classic problem > of difficulty in exercising error handling code. > > ## Is KUnit trying to replace other testing frameworks for the kernel? > > No. Most existing tests for the Linux kernel are end-to-end tests, which > have their place. A well tested system has lots of unit tests, a > reasonable number of integration tests, and some end-to-end tests. KUnit > is just trying to address the unit test space which is currently not > being addressed. > > ## More information on KUnit > > There is a bunch of documentation near the end of this patch set that > describes how to use KUnit and best practices for writing unit tests. > For convenience I am hosting the compiled docs here: > https://google.github.io/kunit-docs/third_party/kernel/docs/ > Additionally for convenience, I have applied these patches to a branch: > https://kunit.googlesource.com/linux/+/kunit/rfc/5.0-rc5/v4 > The repo may be cloned with: > git clone https://kunit.googlesource.com/linux > This patchset is on the kunit/rfc/5.0-rc5/v4 branch. > > ## Changes Since Last Version > > - Got KUnit working on (hypothetically) all architectures (tested on > x86), as per Rob's (and other's) request > - Punting all KUnit features/patches depending on UML for now. > - Broke out UML specific support into arch/um/* as per "[RFC v3 01/19] > kunit: test: add KUnit test runner core", as requested by Luis. > - Added support to kunit_tool to allow it to build kernels in external > directories, as suggested by Kieran. > - Added a UML defconfig, and a config fragment for KUnit as suggested > by Kieran and Luis. > - Cleaned up, and reformatted a bunch of stuff. > I have not read through the patches in any detail. I have read some of the code to try to understand the patches to the devicetree unit tests. So that may limit how valid my comments below are. I found the code difficult to read in places where it should have been much simpler to read. Structuring the code in a pseudo object oriented style meant that everywhere in a code path that I encountered a dynamic function call, I had to go find where that dynamic function call was initialized (and being the cautious person that I am, verify that no where else was the value of that dynamic function call). With primitive vi and tags, that search would have instead just been a simple key press (or at worst a few keys) if hard coded function calls were done instead of dynamic function calls. In the code paths that I looked at, I did not see any case of a dynamic function being anything other than the value it was originally initialized as. There may be such cases, I did not read the entire patch set. There may also be cases envisioned in the architects mind of how this flexibility may be of future value. Dunno. -Frank From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: frowand.list@gmail.com (Frank Rowand) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 12:02:24 -0800 Subject: [RFC v4 00/17] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework In-Reply-To: <20190214213729.21702-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> References: <20190214213729.21702-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Message-ID: <20190218200224.K0KsbikXodoNE9fydHIwVizJJ7Mb7cLJZ5xndvXRPes@z> On 2/14/19 1:37 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote: > This patch set proposes KUnit, a lightweight unit testing and mocking > framework for the Linux kernel. > > Unlike Autotest and kselftest, KUnit is a true unit testing framework; > it does not require installing the kernel on a test machine or in a VM > and does not require tests to be written in userspace running on a host > kernel. Additionally, KUnit is fast: From invocation to completion KUnit > can run several dozen tests in under a second. Currently, the entire > KUnit test suite for KUnit runs in under a second from the initial > invocation (build time excluded). > > KUnit is heavily inspired by JUnit, Python's unittest.mock, and > Googletest/Googlemock for C++. KUnit provides facilities for defining > unit test cases, grouping related test cases into test suites, providing > common infrastructure for running tests, mocking, spying, and much more. > > ## What's so special about unit testing? > > A unit test is supposed to test a single unit of code in isolation, > hence the name. There should be no dependencies outside the control of > the test; this means no external dependencies, which makes tests orders > of magnitudes faster. Likewise, since there are no external dependencies, > there are no hoops to jump through to run the tests. Additionally, this > makes unit tests deterministic: a failing unit test always indicates a > problem. Finally, because unit tests necessarily have finer granularity, > they are able to test all code paths easily solving the classic problem > of difficulty in exercising error handling code. > > ## Is KUnit trying to replace other testing frameworks for the kernel? > > No. Most existing tests for the Linux kernel are end-to-end tests, which > have their place. A well tested system has lots of unit tests, a > reasonable number of integration tests, and some end-to-end tests. KUnit > is just trying to address the unit test space which is currently not > being addressed. > > ## More information on KUnit > > There is a bunch of documentation near the end of this patch set that > describes how to use KUnit and best practices for writing unit tests. > For convenience I am hosting the compiled docs here: > https://google.github.io/kunit-docs/third_party/kernel/docs/ > Additionally for convenience, I have applied these patches to a branch: > https://kunit.googlesource.com/linux/+/kunit/rfc/5.0-rc5/v4 > The repo may be cloned with: > git clone https://kunit.googlesource.com/linux > This patchset is on the kunit/rfc/5.0-rc5/v4 branch. > > ## Changes Since Last Version > > - Got KUnit working on (hypothetically) all architectures (tested on > x86), as per Rob's (and other's) request > - Punting all KUnit features/patches depending on UML for now. > - Broke out UML specific support into arch/um/* as per "[RFC v3 01/19] > kunit: test: add KUnit test runner core", as requested by Luis. > - Added support to kunit_tool to allow it to build kernels in external > directories, as suggested by Kieran. > - Added a UML defconfig, and a config fragment for KUnit as suggested > by Kieran and Luis. > - Cleaned up, and reformatted a bunch of stuff. > I have not read through the patches in any detail. I have read some of the code to try to understand the patches to the devicetree unit tests. So that may limit how valid my comments below are. I found the code difficult to read in places where it should have been much simpler to read. Structuring the code in a pseudo object oriented style meant that everywhere in a code path that I encountered a dynamic function call, I had to go find where that dynamic function call was initialized (and being the cautious person that I am, verify that no where else was the value of that dynamic function call). With primitive vi and tags, that search would have instead just been a simple key press (or at worst a few keys) if hard coded function calls were done instead of dynamic function calls. In the code paths that I looked at, I did not see any case of a dynamic function being anything other than the value it was originally initialized as. There may be such cases, I did not read the entire patch set. There may also be cases envisioned in the architects mind of how this flexibility may be of future value. Dunno. -Frank From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pl1-x642.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::642]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1gvp7V-0006E9-2G for linux-um@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 20:02:33 +0000 Received: by mail-pl1-x642.google.com with SMTP id p8so9243007plo.2 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 12:02:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [RFC v4 00/17] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework References: <20190214213729.21702-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> From: Frank Rowand Message-ID: Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 12:02:24 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190214213729.21702-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> Content-Language: en-US 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 , keescook@google.com, mcgrof@kernel.org, shuah@kernel.org, robh@kernel.org, kieran.bingham@ideasonboard.com Cc: brakmo@fb.com, pmladek@suse.com, amir73il@gmail.com, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, Alexander.Levin@microsoft.com, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, richard@nod.at, knut.omang@oracle.com, wfg@linux.intel.com, joel@jms.id.au, jdike@addtoit.com, dan.carpenter@oracle.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Tim.Bird@sony.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 2/14/19 1:37 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote: > This patch set proposes KUnit, a lightweight unit testing and mocking > framework for the Linux kernel. > > Unlike Autotest and kselftest, KUnit is a true unit testing framework; > it does not require installing the kernel on a test machine or in a VM > and does not require tests to be written in userspace running on a host > kernel. Additionally, KUnit is fast: From invocation to completion KUnit > can run several dozen tests in under a second. Currently, the entire > KUnit test suite for KUnit runs in under a second from the initial > invocation (build time excluded). > > KUnit is heavily inspired by JUnit, Python's unittest.mock, and > Googletest/Googlemock for C++. KUnit provides facilities for defining > unit test cases, grouping related test cases into test suites, providing > common infrastructure for running tests, mocking, spying, and much more. > > ## What's so special about unit testing? > > A unit test is supposed to test a single unit of code in isolation, > hence the name. There should be no dependencies outside the control of > the test; this means no external dependencies, which makes tests orders > of magnitudes faster. Likewise, since there are no external dependencies, > there are no hoops to jump through to run the tests. Additionally, this > makes unit tests deterministic: a failing unit test always indicates a > problem. Finally, because unit tests necessarily have finer granularity, > they are able to test all code paths easily solving the classic problem > of difficulty in exercising error handling code. > > ## Is KUnit trying to replace other testing frameworks for the kernel? > > No. Most existing tests for the Linux kernel are end-to-end tests, which > have their place. A well tested system has lots of unit tests, a > reasonable number of integration tests, and some end-to-end tests. KUnit > is just trying to address the unit test space which is currently not > being addressed. > > ## More information on KUnit > > There is a bunch of documentation near the end of this patch set that > describes how to use KUnit and best practices for writing unit tests. > For convenience I am hosting the compiled docs here: > https://google.github.io/kunit-docs/third_party/kernel/docs/ > Additionally for convenience, I have applied these patches to a branch: > https://kunit.googlesource.com/linux/+/kunit/rfc/5.0-rc5/v4 > The repo may be cloned with: > git clone https://kunit.googlesource.com/linux > This patchset is on the kunit/rfc/5.0-rc5/v4 branch. > > ## Changes Since Last Version > > - Got KUnit working on (hypothetically) all architectures (tested on > x86), as per Rob's (and other's) request > - Punting all KUnit features/patches depending on UML for now. > - Broke out UML specific support into arch/um/* as per "[RFC v3 01/19] > kunit: test: add KUnit test runner core", as requested by Luis. > - Added support to kunit_tool to allow it to build kernels in external > directories, as suggested by Kieran. > - Added a UML defconfig, and a config fragment for KUnit as suggested > by Kieran and Luis. > - Cleaned up, and reformatted a bunch of stuff. > I have not read through the patches in any detail. I have read some of the code to try to understand the patches to the devicetree unit tests. So that may limit how valid my comments below are. I found the code difficult to read in places where it should have been much simpler to read. Structuring the code in a pseudo object oriented style meant that everywhere in a code path that I encountered a dynamic function call, I had to go find where that dynamic function call was initialized (and being the cautious person that I am, verify that no where else was the value of that dynamic function call). With primitive vi and tags, that search would have instead just been a simple key press (or at worst a few keys) if hard coded function calls were done instead of dynamic function calls. In the code paths that I looked at, I did not see any case of a dynamic function being anything other than the value it was originally initialized as. There may be such cases, I did not read the entire patch set. There may also be cases envisioned in the architects mind of how this flexibility may be of future value. Dunno. -Frank _______________________________________________ linux-um mailing list linux-um@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um