* [PATCH 1/2] kunit: tool: make --kunitconfig repeatable, blindly concat
@ 2022-06-24 0:12 Daniel Latypov
2022-06-24 0:12 ` [PATCH 2/2] kunit: add coverage_uml.config to enable GCOV on UML Daniel Latypov
2022-06-24 7:55 ` [PATCH 1/2] kunit: tool: make --kunitconfig repeatable, blindly concat David Gow
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Latypov @ 2022-06-24 0:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: brendanhiggins, davidgow
Cc: linux-kernel, kunit-dev, linux-kselftest, skhan, Daniel Latypov
It's come up a few times that it would be useful to have --kunitconfig
be repeatable [1][2].
This could be done before with a bit of shell-fu, e.g.
$ find fs/ -name '.kunitconfig' -exec cat {} + | \
./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=/dev/stdin
or equivalently:
$ cat fs/ext4/.kunitconfig fs/fat/.kunitconfig | \
./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=/dev/stdin
But this can be fairly clunky to use in practice.
And having explicit support in kunit.py opens the door to having more
config fragments of interest, e.g. options for PCI on UML [1], UML
coverage [2], variants of tests [3].
There's another argument to be made that users can just use multiple
--kconfig_add's, but this gets very clunky very fast (e.g. [2]).
Note: there's a big caveat here that some kconfig options might be
incompatible. We try to give a clearish error message in the simple case
where the same option appears multiple times with conflicting values,
but more subtle ones (e.g. mutually exclusive options) will be
potentially very confusing for the user. I don't know we can do better.
Note 2: if you want to combine a --kunitconfig with the default, you
either have to do to specify the current build_dir
> --kunitconfig=.kunit --kunitconfig=additional.config
or
> --kunitconfig=tools/testing/kunit/configs/default.config --kunitconifg=additional.config
each of which have their downsides (former depends on --build_dir,
doesn't work if you don't have a .kunitconfig yet), etc.
Example with conflicting values:
> $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py config --kunitconfig=lib/kunit --kunitconfig=/dev/stdin <<EOF
> CONFIG_KUNIT_TEST=n
> CONFIG_KUNIT=m
> EOF
> ...
> kunit_kernel.ConfigError: Multiple values specified for 2 options in kunitconfig:
> CONFIG_KUNIT=y
> vs from /dev/stdin
> CONFIG_KUNIT=m
>
> CONFIG_KUNIT_TEST=y
> vs from /dev/stdin
> # CONFIG_KUNIT_TEST is not set
[1] https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2022-June/357616.html
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/CAFd5g45f3X3xF2vz2BkTHRqOC4uW6GZxtUUMaP5mwwbK8uNVtA@mail.gmail.com/
[3] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/CANpmjNOdSy6DuO6CYZ4UxhGxqhjzx4tn0sJMbRqo2xRFv9kX6Q@mail.gmail.com/
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
---
NOTE: this series is based on https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20220520224200.3764027-1-dlatypov@google.com/
That patch redoes kunitconfig parsing, so we'd have merge conflicts
either way we order these.
---
tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py | 13 ++++---
tools/testing/kunit/kunit_config.py | 11 +++++-
tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py | 38 ++++++++++++------
tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++---
4 files changed, 91 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py
index 13bd72e47da8..163f6b8ac464 100755
--- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py
+++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py
@@ -291,8 +291,9 @@ def add_common_opts(parser) -> None:
parser.add_argument('--kunitconfig',
help='Path to Kconfig fragment that enables KUnit tests.'
' If given a directory, (e.g. lib/kunit), "/.kunitconfig" '
- 'will get automatically appended.',
- metavar='PATH')
+ 'will get automatically appended. If repeated, the files '
+ 'blindly concatenated, which might not work in all cases.',
+ action='append', metavar='PATHS')
parser.add_argument('--kconfig_add',
help='Additional Kconfig options to append to the '
'.kunitconfig, e.g. CONFIG_KASAN=y. Can be repeated.',
@@ -414,7 +415,7 @@ def main(argv, linux=None):
if not linux:
linux = kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree(cli_args.build_dir,
- kunitconfig_path=cli_args.kunitconfig,
+ kunitconfig_paths=cli_args.kunitconfig,
kconfig_add=cli_args.kconfig_add,
arch=cli_args.arch,
cross_compile=cli_args.cross_compile,
@@ -440,7 +441,7 @@ def main(argv, linux=None):
if not linux:
linux = kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree(cli_args.build_dir,
- kunitconfig_path=cli_args.kunitconfig,
+ kunitconfig_paths=cli_args.kunitconfig,
kconfig_add=cli_args.kconfig_add,
arch=cli_args.arch,
cross_compile=cli_args.cross_compile,
@@ -457,7 +458,7 @@ def main(argv, linux=None):
elif cli_args.subcommand == 'build':
if not linux:
linux = kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree(cli_args.build_dir,
- kunitconfig_path=cli_args.kunitconfig,
+ kunitconfig_paths=cli_args.kunitconfig,
kconfig_add=cli_args.kconfig_add,
arch=cli_args.arch,
cross_compile=cli_args.cross_compile,
@@ -476,7 +477,7 @@ def main(argv, linux=None):
elif cli_args.subcommand == 'exec':
if not linux:
linux = kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree(cli_args.build_dir,
- kunitconfig_path=cli_args.kunitconfig,
+ kunitconfig_paths=cli_args.kunitconfig,
kconfig_add=cli_args.kconfig_add,
arch=cli_args.arch,
cross_compile=cli_args.cross_compile,
diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_config.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_config.py
index 89443400b17e..05b129030c6e 100644
--- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_config.py
+++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_config.py
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
from dataclasses import dataclass
import re
-from typing import Dict, Iterable, Set
+from typing import Dict, Iterable, List, Set, Tuple
CONFIG_IS_NOT_SET_PATTERN = r'^# CONFIG_(\w+) is not set$'
CONFIG_PATTERN = r'^CONFIG_(\w+)=(\S+|".*")$'
@@ -64,6 +64,15 @@ class Kconfig:
def set_diff(self, other: 'Kconfig') -> Set[KconfigEntry]:
return set(self._as_entries()) - set(other._as_entries())
+ def differing_options(self, other: 'Kconfig') -> List[Tuple[KconfigEntry, KconfigEntry]]:
+ diff = [] # type: List[Tuple[KconfigEntry, KconfigEntry]]
+ for name, value in self._entries.items():
+ b = other._entries.get(name)
+ if b and value != b:
+ pair = (KconfigEntry(name, value), KconfigEntry(name, b))
+ diff.append(pair)
+ return diff
+
def merge_in_entries(self, other: 'Kconfig') -> None:
for name, value in other._entries.items():
self._entries[name] = value
diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py
index 6d994bb24999..fc415ff7530e 100644
--- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py
+++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py
@@ -176,6 +176,30 @@ def get_kunitconfig_path(build_dir: str) -> str:
def get_old_kunitconfig_path(build_dir: str) -> str:
return os.path.join(build_dir, OLD_KUNITCONFIG_PATH)
+def get_parsed_kunitconfig(build_dir: str,
+ kunitconfig_paths: Optional[List[str]]=None) -> kunit_config.Kconfig:
+ if not kunitconfig_paths:
+ path = get_kunitconfig_path(build_dir)
+ if not os.path.exists(path):
+ shutil.copyfile(DEFAULT_KUNITCONFIG_PATH, path)
+ return kunit_config.parse_file(path)
+
+ merged = kunit_config.Kconfig()
+
+ for path in kunitconfig_paths:
+ if os.path.isdir(path):
+ path = os.path.join(path, KUNITCONFIG_PATH)
+ if not os.path.exists(path):
+ raise ConfigError(f'Specified kunitconfig ({path}) does not exist')
+
+ partial = kunit_config.parse_file(path)
+ diff = merged.differing_options(partial)
+ if diff:
+ diff_str = '\n\n'.join(f'{a}\n vs from {path}\n{b}' for a, b in diff)
+ raise ConfigError(f'Multiple values specified for {len(diff)} options in kunitconfig:\n{diff_str}')
+ merged.merge_in_entries(partial)
+ return merged
+
def get_outfile_path(build_dir: str) -> str:
return os.path.join(build_dir, OUTFILE_PATH)
@@ -221,7 +245,7 @@ class LinuxSourceTree:
self,
build_dir: str,
load_config=True,
- kunitconfig_path='',
+ kunitconfig_paths: Optional[List[str]]=None,
kconfig_add: Optional[List[str]]=None,
arch=None,
cross_compile=None,
@@ -237,17 +261,7 @@ class LinuxSourceTree:
if not load_config:
return
- if kunitconfig_path:
- if os.path.isdir(kunitconfig_path):
- kunitconfig_path = os.path.join(kunitconfig_path, KUNITCONFIG_PATH)
- if not os.path.exists(kunitconfig_path):
- raise ConfigError(f'Specified kunitconfig ({kunitconfig_path}) does not exist')
- else:
- kunitconfig_path = get_kunitconfig_path(build_dir)
- if not os.path.exists(kunitconfig_path):
- shutil.copyfile(DEFAULT_KUNITCONFIG_PATH, kunitconfig_path)
-
- self._kconfig = kunit_config.parse_file(kunitconfig_path)
+ self._kconfig = get_parsed_kunitconfig(build_dir, kunitconfig_paths)
if kconfig_add:
kconfig = kunit_config.parse_from_string('\n'.join(kconfig_add))
self._kconfig.merge_in_entries(kconfig)
diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
index 3a8f638ff092..e21ae1331350 100755
--- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
+++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
@@ -356,17 +356,46 @@ class LinuxSourceTreeTest(unittest.TestCase):
def test_invalid_kunitconfig(self):
with self.assertRaisesRegex(kunit_kernel.ConfigError, 'nonexistent.* does not exist'):
- kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree('', kunitconfig_path='/nonexistent_file')
+ kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree('', kunitconfig_paths=['/nonexistent_file'])
def test_valid_kunitconfig(self):
with tempfile.NamedTemporaryFile('wt') as kunitconfig:
- kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree('', kunitconfig_path=kunitconfig.name)
+ kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree('', kunitconfig_paths=[kunitconfig.name])
def test_dir_kunitconfig(self):
with tempfile.TemporaryDirectory('') as dir:
with open(os.path.join(dir, '.kunitconfig'), 'w'):
pass
- kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree('', kunitconfig_path=dir)
+ kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree('', kunitconfig_paths=[dir])
+
+ def test_multiple_kunitconfig(self):
+ want_kconfig = kunit_config.Kconfig()
+ want_kconfig.add_entry('KUNIT', 'y')
+ want_kconfig.add_entry('KUNIT_TEST', 'm')
+
+ with tempfile.TemporaryDirectory('') as dir:
+ other = os.path.join(dir, 'otherkunitconfig')
+ with open(os.path.join(dir, '.kunitconfig'), 'w') as f:
+ f.write('CONFIG_KUNIT=y')
+ with open(other, 'w') as f:
+ f.write('CONFIG_KUNIT_TEST=m')
+ pass
+
+ tree = kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree('', kunitconfig_paths=[dir, other])
+ self.assertFalse(want_kconfig.set_diff(tree._kconfig))
+
+
+ def test_multiple_kunitconfig_invalid(self):
+ with tempfile.TemporaryDirectory('') as dir:
+ other = os.path.join(dir, 'otherkunitconfig')
+ with open(os.path.join(dir, '.kunitconfig'), 'w') as f:
+ f.write('CONFIG_KUNIT=y')
+ with open(other, 'w') as f:
+ f.write('CONFIG_KUNIT=m')
+
+ with self.assertRaisesRegex(kunit_kernel.ConfigError, '(?s)Multiple values.*CONFIG_KUNIT'):
+ kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree('', kunitconfig_paths=[dir, other])
+
def test_kconfig_add(self):
want_kconfig = kunit_config.Kconfig()
@@ -637,7 +666,7 @@ class KUnitMainTest(unittest.TestCase):
kunit.main(['run', '--kunitconfig=mykunitconfig'])
# Just verify that we parsed and initialized it correctly here.
mock_linux_init.assert_called_once_with('.kunit',
- kunitconfig_path='mykunitconfig',
+ kunitconfig_paths=['mykunitconfig'],
kconfig_add=None,
arch='um',
cross_compile=None,
@@ -649,19 +678,32 @@ class KUnitMainTest(unittest.TestCase):
kunit.main(['config', '--kunitconfig=mykunitconfig'])
# Just verify that we parsed and initialized it correctly here.
mock_linux_init.assert_called_once_with('.kunit',
- kunitconfig_path='mykunitconfig',
+ kunitconfig_paths=['mykunitconfig'],
kconfig_add=None,
arch='um',
cross_compile=None,
qemu_config_path=None)
+ @mock.patch.object(kunit_kernel, 'LinuxSourceTree')
+ def test_run_multiple_kunitconfig(self, mock_linux_init):
+ mock_linux_init.return_value = self.linux_source_mock
+ kunit.main(['run', '--kunitconfig=mykunitconfig', '--kunitconfig=other'])
+ # Just verify that we parsed and initialized it correctly here.
+ mock_linux_init.assert_called_once_with('.kunit',
+ kunitconfig_paths=['mykunitconfig', 'other'],
+ kconfig_add=None,
+ arch='um',
+ cross_compile=None,
+ qemu_config_path=None)
+
+
@mock.patch.object(kunit_kernel, 'LinuxSourceTree')
def test_run_kconfig_add(self, mock_linux_init):
mock_linux_init.return_value = self.linux_source_mock
kunit.main(['run', '--kconfig_add=CONFIG_KASAN=y', '--kconfig_add=CONFIG_KCSAN=y'])
# Just verify that we parsed and initialized it correctly here.
mock_linux_init.assert_called_once_with('.kunit',
- kunitconfig_path=None,
+ kunitconfig_paths=None,
kconfig_add=['CONFIG_KASAN=y', 'CONFIG_KCSAN=y'],
arch='um',
cross_compile=None,
--
2.37.0.rc0.104.g0611611a94-goog
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/2] kunit: add coverage_uml.config to enable GCOV on UML
2022-06-24 0:12 [PATCH 1/2] kunit: tool: make --kunitconfig repeatable, blindly concat Daniel Latypov
@ 2022-06-24 0:12 ` Daniel Latypov
2022-06-24 7:55 ` David Gow
2022-06-24 7:55 ` [PATCH 1/2] kunit: tool: make --kunitconfig repeatable, blindly concat David Gow
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Latypov @ 2022-06-24 0:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: brendanhiggins, davidgow
Cc: linux-kernel, kunit-dev, linux-kselftest, skhan, Daniel Latypov
Now that kunit.py's --kunitconfig is repeatable, let's create a file to
hold the various options needed to enable coverage under UML.
This can be used like so:
$ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run \
--kunitconfig=tools/testing/kunit/configs/all_tests_uml.config \
--kunitconfig=tools/testing/kunit/configs/coverage_uml.config \
--make_options=CC=/usr/bin/gcc-6
which on my system is enough to get coverage working [1].
This is still a clunky command, but far better than before.
[1] at the time of this commit, I get:
Overall coverage rate:
lines......: 11.6% (34112 of 295033 lines)
functions..: 15.3% (3721 of 24368 functions)
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
---
Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/running_tips.rst | 3 +--
tools/testing/kunit/configs/coverage_uml.config | 11 +++++++++++
2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 tools/testing/kunit/configs/coverage_uml.config
diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/running_tips.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/running_tips.rst
index c36f6760087d..205ea21c9cca 100644
--- a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/running_tips.rst
+++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/running_tips.rst
@@ -123,8 +123,7 @@ Putting it together into a copy-pastable sequence of commands:
.. code-block:: bash
# Append coverage options to the current config
- $ echo -e "CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL=y\nCONFIG_DEBUG_INFO=y\nCONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_DWARF_TOOLCHAIN_DEFAULT=y\nCONFIG_GCOV=y" >> .kunit/.kunitconfig
- $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run
+ $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=.kunit/ --kunitconfig=tools/testing/kunit/configs/coverage_uml.config
# Extract the coverage information from the build dir (.kunit/)
$ lcov -t "my_kunit_tests" -o coverage.info -c -d .kunit/
diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/configs/coverage_uml.config b/tools/testing/kunit/configs/coverage_uml.config
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..bacb77664fa8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/kunit/configs/coverage_uml.config
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+# This config fragment enables coverage on UML, which is different from the
+# normal gcov used in other arches (no debugfs).
+# Example usage:
+# ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run \
+# --kunitconfig=tools/testing/kunit/configs/all_tests_uml.config \
+# --kunitconfig=tools/testing/kunit/configs/coverage_uml.config
+
+CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL=y
+CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO=y
+CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_DWARF_TOOLCHAIN_DEFAULT=y
+CONFIG_GCOV=y
--
2.37.0.rc0.104.g0611611a94-goog
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] kunit: tool: make --kunitconfig repeatable, blindly concat
2022-06-24 0:12 [PATCH 1/2] kunit: tool: make --kunitconfig repeatable, blindly concat Daniel Latypov
2022-06-24 0:12 ` [PATCH 2/2] kunit: add coverage_uml.config to enable GCOV on UML Daniel Latypov
@ 2022-06-24 7:55 ` David Gow
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: David Gow @ 2022-06-24 7:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Latypov
Cc: Brendan Higgins, Linux Kernel Mailing List, KUnit Development,
open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK, Shuah Khan
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 18461 bytes --]
On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 8:12 AM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> wrote:
>
> It's come up a few times that it would be useful to have --kunitconfig
> be repeatable [1][2].
>
> This could be done before with a bit of shell-fu, e.g.
> $ find fs/ -name '.kunitconfig' -exec cat {} + | \
> ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=/dev/stdin
> or equivalently:
> $ cat fs/ext4/.kunitconfig fs/fat/.kunitconfig | \
> ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=/dev/stdin
>
> But this can be fairly clunky to use in practice.
>
> And having explicit support in kunit.py opens the door to having more
> config fragments of interest, e.g. options for PCI on UML [1], UML
> coverage [2], variants of tests [3].
> There's another argument to be made that users can just use multiple
> --kconfig_add's, but this gets very clunky very fast (e.g. [2]).
>
> Note: there's a big caveat here that some kconfig options might be
> incompatible. We try to give a clearish error message in the simple case
> where the same option appears multiple times with conflicting values,
> but more subtle ones (e.g. mutually exclusive options) will be
> potentially very confusing for the user. I don't know we can do better.
>
> Note 2: if you want to combine a --kunitconfig with the default, you
> either have to do to specify the current build_dir
> > --kunitconfig=.kunit --kunitconfig=additional.config
> or
> > --kunitconfig=tools/testing/kunit/configs/default.config --kunitconifg=additional.config
> each of which have their downsides (former depends on --build_dir,
> doesn't work if you don't have a .kunitconfig yet), etc.
>
> Example with conflicting values:
> > $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py config --kunitconfig=lib/kunit --kunitconfig=/dev/stdin <<EOF
> > CONFIG_KUNIT_TEST=n
> > CONFIG_KUNIT=m
> > EOF
> > ...
> > kunit_kernel.ConfigError: Multiple values specified for 2 options in kunitconfig:
> > CONFIG_KUNIT=y
> > vs from /dev/stdin
> > CONFIG_KUNIT=m
> >
> > CONFIG_KUNIT_TEST=y
> > vs from /dev/stdin
> > # CONFIG_KUNIT_TEST is not set
>
> [1] https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2022-June/357616.html
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/CAFd5g45f3X3xF2vz2BkTHRqOC4uW6GZxtUUMaP5mwwbK8uNVtA@mail.gmail.com/
> [3] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/CANpmjNOdSy6DuO6CYZ4UxhGxqhjzx4tn0sJMbRqo2xRFv9kX6Q@mail.gmail.com/
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
> ---
>
> NOTE: this series is based on https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20220520224200.3764027-1-dlatypov@google.com/
> That patch redoes kunitconfig parsing, so we'd have merge conflicts
> either way we order these.
>
> ---
This looks good, and works for me (and is proving useful already).
I do think we're approaching a level of confusion with the number of
different ways kconfig options are added, so we'll need to update the
documentation once all of these related patches land.
In particular, we now have the following sources of kconfig options:
- defaults in the actual Kconfig files (and, potentially, kernel
architecture defconfigs)
- kunit_tool architecture specific (e.g. qemu_config) Kconfig entries
- the "default" kunitconfig, which is copied into the build dir, and
that copy is only used if --kunitconfig is not passed.
- other kunitconfig(s) passed with --kunitconfig, some of which live
in tools/testing/kunit/configs, some of which live in
subsystem-specific directories
- command-line --kconfig_add options
Exactly when each of these apply, whether they error if they conflict,
or override each other, and when to use them is not always obvious.
Still, it's working pretty well in practice, so I think the solution
is probably going to be having good examples and documentation, and
responding well to any questions.
In any case, the code for this looks good to me -- my only minor
annoyance is the churn renaming kunitconfig_path -> kunitconfig_paths
gives, and that's a temporary inconvenience -- so this is:
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Cheers,
-- David
> tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py | 13 ++++---
> tools/testing/kunit/kunit_config.py | 11 +++++-
> tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py | 38 ++++++++++++------
> tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++---
> 4 files changed, 91 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py
> index 13bd72e47da8..163f6b8ac464 100755
> --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py
> +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py
> @@ -291,8 +291,9 @@ def add_common_opts(parser) -> None:
> parser.add_argument('--kunitconfig',
> help='Path to Kconfig fragment that enables KUnit tests.'
> ' If given a directory, (e.g. lib/kunit), "/.kunitconfig" '
> - 'will get automatically appended.',
> - metavar='PATH')
> + 'will get automatically appended. If repeated, the files '
> + 'blindly concatenated, which might not work in all cases.',
> + action='append', metavar='PATHS')
> parser.add_argument('--kconfig_add',
> help='Additional Kconfig options to append to the '
> '.kunitconfig, e.g. CONFIG_KASAN=y. Can be repeated.',
> @@ -414,7 +415,7 @@ def main(argv, linux=None):
>
> if not linux:
> linux = kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree(cli_args.build_dir,
> - kunitconfig_path=cli_args.kunitconfig,
> + kunitconfig_paths=cli_args.kunitconfig,
> kconfig_add=cli_args.kconfig_add,
> arch=cli_args.arch,
> cross_compile=cli_args.cross_compile,
> @@ -440,7 +441,7 @@ def main(argv, linux=None):
>
> if not linux:
> linux = kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree(cli_args.build_dir,
> - kunitconfig_path=cli_args.kunitconfig,
> + kunitconfig_paths=cli_args.kunitconfig,
> kconfig_add=cli_args.kconfig_add,
> arch=cli_args.arch,
> cross_compile=cli_args.cross_compile,
> @@ -457,7 +458,7 @@ def main(argv, linux=None):
> elif cli_args.subcommand == 'build':
> if not linux:
> linux = kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree(cli_args.build_dir,
> - kunitconfig_path=cli_args.kunitconfig,
> + kunitconfig_paths=cli_args.kunitconfig,
> kconfig_add=cli_args.kconfig_add,
> arch=cli_args.arch,
> cross_compile=cli_args.cross_compile,
> @@ -476,7 +477,7 @@ def main(argv, linux=None):
> elif cli_args.subcommand == 'exec':
> if not linux:
> linux = kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree(cli_args.build_dir,
> - kunitconfig_path=cli_args.kunitconfig,
> + kunitconfig_paths=cli_args.kunitconfig,
> kconfig_add=cli_args.kconfig_add,
> arch=cli_args.arch,
> cross_compile=cli_args.cross_compile,
> diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_config.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_config.py
> index 89443400b17e..05b129030c6e 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_config.py
> +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_config.py
> @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
>
> from dataclasses import dataclass
> import re
> -from typing import Dict, Iterable, Set
> +from typing import Dict, Iterable, List, Set, Tuple
>
> CONFIG_IS_NOT_SET_PATTERN = r'^# CONFIG_(\w+) is not set$'
> CONFIG_PATTERN = r'^CONFIG_(\w+)=(\S+|".*")$'
> @@ -64,6 +64,15 @@ class Kconfig:
> def set_diff(self, other: 'Kconfig') -> Set[KconfigEntry]:
> return set(self._as_entries()) - set(other._as_entries())
>
> + def differing_options(self, other: 'Kconfig') -> List[Tuple[KconfigEntry, KconfigEntry]]:
> + diff = [] # type: List[Tuple[KconfigEntry, KconfigEntry]]
> + for name, value in self._entries.items():
> + b = other._entries.get(name)
> + if b and value != b:
> + pair = (KconfigEntry(name, value), KconfigEntry(name, b))
> + diff.append(pair)
> + return diff
> +
> def merge_in_entries(self, other: 'Kconfig') -> None:
> for name, value in other._entries.items():
> self._entries[name] = value
> diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py
> index 6d994bb24999..fc415ff7530e 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py
> +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py
> @@ -176,6 +176,30 @@ def get_kunitconfig_path(build_dir: str) -> str:
> def get_old_kunitconfig_path(build_dir: str) -> str:
> return os.path.join(build_dir, OLD_KUNITCONFIG_PATH)
>
> +def get_parsed_kunitconfig(build_dir: str,
> + kunitconfig_paths: Optional[List[str]]=None) -> kunit_config.Kconfig:
> + if not kunitconfig_paths:
> + path = get_kunitconfig_path(build_dir)
> + if not os.path.exists(path):
> + shutil.copyfile(DEFAULT_KUNITCONFIG_PATH, path)
> + return kunit_config.parse_file(path)
> +
> + merged = kunit_config.Kconfig()
> +
> + for path in kunitconfig_paths:
> + if os.path.isdir(path):
> + path = os.path.join(path, KUNITCONFIG_PATH)
> + if not os.path.exists(path):
> + raise ConfigError(f'Specified kunitconfig ({path}) does not exist')
> +
> + partial = kunit_config.parse_file(path)
> + diff = merged.differing_options(partial)
> + if diff:
> + diff_str = '\n\n'.join(f'{a}\n vs from {path}\n{b}' for a, b in diff)
> + raise ConfigError(f'Multiple values specified for {len(diff)} options in kunitconfig:\n{diff_str}')
> + merged.merge_in_entries(partial)
> + return merged
> +
> def get_outfile_path(build_dir: str) -> str:
> return os.path.join(build_dir, OUTFILE_PATH)
>
> @@ -221,7 +245,7 @@ class LinuxSourceTree:
> self,
> build_dir: str,
> load_config=True,
> - kunitconfig_path='',
> + kunitconfig_paths: Optional[List[str]]=None,
> kconfig_add: Optional[List[str]]=None,
> arch=None,
> cross_compile=None,
> @@ -237,17 +261,7 @@ class LinuxSourceTree:
> if not load_config:
> return
>
> - if kunitconfig_path:
> - if os.path.isdir(kunitconfig_path):
> - kunitconfig_path = os.path.join(kunitconfig_path, KUNITCONFIG_PATH)
> - if not os.path.exists(kunitconfig_path):
> - raise ConfigError(f'Specified kunitconfig ({kunitconfig_path}) does not exist')
> - else:
> - kunitconfig_path = get_kunitconfig_path(build_dir)
> - if not os.path.exists(kunitconfig_path):
> - shutil.copyfile(DEFAULT_KUNITCONFIG_PATH, kunitconfig_path)
> -
> - self._kconfig = kunit_config.parse_file(kunitconfig_path)
> + self._kconfig = get_parsed_kunitconfig(build_dir, kunitconfig_paths)
> if kconfig_add:
> kconfig = kunit_config.parse_from_string('\n'.join(kconfig_add))
> self._kconfig.merge_in_entries(kconfig)
> diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
> index 3a8f638ff092..e21ae1331350 100755
> --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
> +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
> @@ -356,17 +356,46 @@ class LinuxSourceTreeTest(unittest.TestCase):
>
> def test_invalid_kunitconfig(self):
> with self.assertRaisesRegex(kunit_kernel.ConfigError, 'nonexistent.* does not exist'):
> - kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree('', kunitconfig_path='/nonexistent_file')
> + kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree('', kunitconfig_paths=['/nonexistent_file'])
>
> def test_valid_kunitconfig(self):
> with tempfile.NamedTemporaryFile('wt') as kunitconfig:
> - kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree('', kunitconfig_path=kunitconfig.name)
> + kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree('', kunitconfig_paths=[kunitconfig.name])
>
> def test_dir_kunitconfig(self):
> with tempfile.TemporaryDirectory('') as dir:
> with open(os.path.join(dir, '.kunitconfig'), 'w'):
> pass
> - kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree('', kunitconfig_path=dir)
> + kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree('', kunitconfig_paths=[dir])
> +
> + def test_multiple_kunitconfig(self):
> + want_kconfig = kunit_config.Kconfig()
> + want_kconfig.add_entry('KUNIT', 'y')
> + want_kconfig.add_entry('KUNIT_TEST', 'm')
> +
> + with tempfile.TemporaryDirectory('') as dir:
> + other = os.path.join(dir, 'otherkunitconfig')
> + with open(os.path.join(dir, '.kunitconfig'), 'w') as f:
> + f.write('CONFIG_KUNIT=y')
> + with open(other, 'w') as f:
> + f.write('CONFIG_KUNIT_TEST=m')
> + pass
> +
> + tree = kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree('', kunitconfig_paths=[dir, other])
> + self.assertFalse(want_kconfig.set_diff(tree._kconfig))
> +
> +
> + def test_multiple_kunitconfig_invalid(self):
> + with tempfile.TemporaryDirectory('') as dir:
> + other = os.path.join(dir, 'otherkunitconfig')
> + with open(os.path.join(dir, '.kunitconfig'), 'w') as f:
> + f.write('CONFIG_KUNIT=y')
> + with open(other, 'w') as f:
> + f.write('CONFIG_KUNIT=m')
> +
> + with self.assertRaisesRegex(kunit_kernel.ConfigError, '(?s)Multiple values.*CONFIG_KUNIT'):
> + kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree('', kunitconfig_paths=[dir, other])
> +
>
> def test_kconfig_add(self):
> want_kconfig = kunit_config.Kconfig()
> @@ -637,7 +666,7 @@ class KUnitMainTest(unittest.TestCase):
> kunit.main(['run', '--kunitconfig=mykunitconfig'])
> # Just verify that we parsed and initialized it correctly here.
> mock_linux_init.assert_called_once_with('.kunit',
> - kunitconfig_path='mykunitconfig',
> + kunitconfig_paths=['mykunitconfig'],
> kconfig_add=None,
> arch='um',
> cross_compile=None,
> @@ -649,19 +678,32 @@ class KUnitMainTest(unittest.TestCase):
> kunit.main(['config', '--kunitconfig=mykunitconfig'])
> # Just verify that we parsed and initialized it correctly here.
> mock_linux_init.assert_called_once_with('.kunit',
> - kunitconfig_path='mykunitconfig',
> + kunitconfig_paths=['mykunitconfig'],
> kconfig_add=None,
> arch='um',
> cross_compile=None,
> qemu_config_path=None)
>
> + @mock.patch.object(kunit_kernel, 'LinuxSourceTree')
> + def test_run_multiple_kunitconfig(self, mock_linux_init):
> + mock_linux_init.return_value = self.linux_source_mock
> + kunit.main(['run', '--kunitconfig=mykunitconfig', '--kunitconfig=other'])
> + # Just verify that we parsed and initialized it correctly here.
> + mock_linux_init.assert_called_once_with('.kunit',
> + kunitconfig_paths=['mykunitconfig', 'other'],
> + kconfig_add=None,
> + arch='um',
> + cross_compile=None,
> + qemu_config_path=None)
> +
> +
> @mock.patch.object(kunit_kernel, 'LinuxSourceTree')
> def test_run_kconfig_add(self, mock_linux_init):
> mock_linux_init.return_value = self.linux_source_mock
> kunit.main(['run', '--kconfig_add=CONFIG_KASAN=y', '--kconfig_add=CONFIG_KCSAN=y'])
> # Just verify that we parsed and initialized it correctly here.
> mock_linux_init.assert_called_once_with('.kunit',
> - kunitconfig_path=None,
> + kunitconfig_paths=None,
> kconfig_add=['CONFIG_KASAN=y', 'CONFIG_KCSAN=y'],
> arch='um',
> cross_compile=None,
> --
> 2.37.0.rc0.104.g0611611a94-goog
>
[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4003 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kunit: add coverage_uml.config to enable GCOV on UML
2022-06-24 0:12 ` [PATCH 2/2] kunit: add coverage_uml.config to enable GCOV on UML Daniel Latypov
@ 2022-06-24 7:55 ` David Gow
2022-06-24 14:12 ` Maíra Canal
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: David Gow @ 2022-06-24 7:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Latypov
Cc: Brendan Higgins, Linux Kernel Mailing List, KUnit Development,
open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK, Shuah Khan
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3581 bytes --]
On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 8:12 AM 'Daniel Latypov' via KUnit Development
<kunit-dev@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> Now that kunit.py's --kunitconfig is repeatable, let's create a file to
> hold the various options needed to enable coverage under UML.
>
> This can be used like so:
> $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run \
> --kunitconfig=tools/testing/kunit/configs/all_tests_uml.config \
> --kunitconfig=tools/testing/kunit/configs/coverage_uml.config \
> --make_options=CC=/usr/bin/gcc-6
>
> which on my system is enough to get coverage working [1].
>
> This is still a clunky command, but far better than before.
>
> [1] at the time of this commit, I get:
> Overall coverage rate:
> lines......: 11.6% (34112 of 295033 lines)
> functions..: 15.3% (3721 of 24368 functions)
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
> ---
Looks good to me: depending on whether or not we do something like
[1], we should add a pci_uml.config as well.
Alas, I don't have a working gcc 6 install anymore, so I wasn't able
to test the coverage here, but I at least got an encouraging-looking
error, and the change looks very sensible, so:
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Cheers,
-- David
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20220622035326.759935-1-davidgow@google.com/
> Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/running_tips.rst | 3 +--
> tools/testing/kunit/configs/coverage_uml.config | 11 +++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 tools/testing/kunit/configs/coverage_uml.config
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/running_tips.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/running_tips.rst
> index c36f6760087d..205ea21c9cca 100644
> --- a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/running_tips.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/running_tips.rst
> @@ -123,8 +123,7 @@ Putting it together into a copy-pastable sequence of commands:
> .. code-block:: bash
>
> # Append coverage options to the current config
> - $ echo -e "CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL=y\nCONFIG_DEBUG_INFO=y\nCONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_DWARF_TOOLCHAIN_DEFAULT=y\nCONFIG_GCOV=y" >> .kunit/.kunitconfig
> - $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run
> + $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=.kunit/ --kunitconfig=tools/testing/kunit/configs/coverage_uml.config
> # Extract the coverage information from the build dir (.kunit/)
> $ lcov -t "my_kunit_tests" -o coverage.info -c -d .kunit/
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/configs/coverage_uml.config b/tools/testing/kunit/configs/coverage_uml.config
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..bacb77664fa8
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/configs/coverage_uml.config
> @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
> +# This config fragment enables coverage on UML, which is different from the
> +# normal gcov used in other arches (no debugfs).
> +# Example usage:
> +# ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run \
> +# --kunitconfig=tools/testing/kunit/configs/all_tests_uml.config \
> +# --kunitconfig=tools/testing/kunit/configs/coverage_uml.config
> +
> +CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL=y
> +CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO=y
> +CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_DWARF_TOOLCHAIN_DEFAULT=y
> +CONFIG_GCOV=y
> --
> 2.37.0.rc0.104.g0611611a94-goog
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "KUnit Development" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kunit-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kunit-dev/20220624001247.3255978-2-dlatypov%40google.com.
[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4003 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kunit: add coverage_uml.config to enable GCOV on UML
2022-06-24 7:55 ` David Gow
@ 2022-06-24 14:12 ` Maíra Canal
2022-06-24 16:13 ` Daniel Latypov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Maíra Canal @ 2022-06-24 14:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Gow, Daniel Latypov
Cc: Brendan Higgins, Linux Kernel Mailing List, KUnit Development,
open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK, Shuah Khan
On 6/24/22 04:55, 'David Gow' via KUnit Development wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 8:12 AM 'Daniel Latypov' via KUnit Development
> <kunit-dev@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>> Now that kunit.py's --kunitconfig is repeatable, let's create a file to
>> hold the various options needed to enable coverage under UML.
>>
>> This can be used like so:
>> $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run \
>> --kunitconfig=tools/testing/kunit/configs/all_tests_uml.config \
>> --kunitconfig=tools/testing/kunit/configs/coverage_uml.config \
>> --make_options=CC=/usr/bin/gcc-6
>>
>> which on my system is enough to get coverage working [1].
>>
It's great to see this coming to KUnit! As I was testing this series, I
wasn't able to generate the coverage stats with GCC11. I got a linking
error from ld:
ERROR:root:/usr/bin/ld:
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/11/libgcov.a(_gcov.o): in function
`mangle_path':
(.text+0x19f0): multiple definition of `mangle_path';
fs/seq_file.o:/home/mairacanal/linux/.kunit/../fs/seq_file.c:441: first
defined here
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
By changing the name of the function to `seq_mangle_path`, it is
possible to solve the linking error and run the tests. But, anyway, no
.gcda files are generated.
I checked out, and this is a known issue that was already discussed in
this series [1] (but I guess it didn't move on).
Is there any hope to see better UM support for gcov as using GCC6 is
quite uncommon nowadays?
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210312095526.197739-1-johannes@sipsolutions.net/
Best regards,
- Maíra Canal
>> This is still a clunky command, but far better than before.
>>
>> [1] at the time of this commit, I get:
>> Overall coverage rate:
>> lines......: 11.6% (34112 of 295033 lines)
>> functions..: 15.3% (3721 of 24368 functions)
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
>> ---
>
> Looks good to me: depending on whether or not we do something like
> [1], we should add a pci_uml.config as well.
>
> Alas, I don't have a working gcc 6 install anymore, so I wasn't able
> to test the coverage here, but I at least got an encouraging-looking
> error, and the change looks very sensible, so:
>
> Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
>
> Cheers,
> -- David
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20220622035326.759935-1-davidgow@google.com/
>
>
>> Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/running_tips.rst | 3 +--
>> tools/testing/kunit/configs/coverage_uml.config | 11 +++++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> create mode 100644 tools/testing/kunit/configs/coverage_uml.config
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/running_tips.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/running_tips.rst
>> index c36f6760087d..205ea21c9cca 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/running_tips.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/running_tips.rst
>> @@ -123,8 +123,7 @@ Putting it together into a copy-pastable sequence of commands:
>> .. code-block:: bash
>>
>> # Append coverage options to the current config
>> - $ echo -e "CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL=y\nCONFIG_DEBUG_INFO=y\nCONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_DWARF_TOOLCHAIN_DEFAULT=y\nCONFIG_GCOV=y" >> .kunit/.kunitconfig
>> - $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run
>> + $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=.kunit/ --kunitconfig=tools/testing/kunit/configs/coverage_uml.config
>> # Extract the coverage information from the build dir (.kunit/)
>> $ lcov -t "my_kunit_tests" -o coverage.info -c -d .kunit/
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/configs/coverage_uml.config b/tools/testing/kunit/configs/coverage_uml.config
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..bacb77664fa8
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/configs/coverage_uml.config
>> @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
>> +# This config fragment enables coverage on UML, which is different from the
>> +# normal gcov used in other arches (no debugfs).
>> +# Example usage:
>> +# ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run \
>> +# --kunitconfig=tools/testing/kunit/configs/all_tests_uml.config \
>> +# --kunitconfig=tools/testing/kunit/configs/coverage_uml.config
>> +
>> +CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL=y
>> +CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO=y
>> +CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_DWARF_TOOLCHAIN_DEFAULT=y
>> +CONFIG_GCOV=y
>> --
>> 2.37.0.rc0.104.g0611611a94-goog
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "KUnit Development" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kunit-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kunit-dev/20220624001247.3255978-2-dlatypov%40google.com.
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kunit: add coverage_uml.config to enable GCOV on UML
2022-06-24 14:12 ` Maíra Canal
@ 2022-06-24 16:13 ` Daniel Latypov
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Latypov @ 2022-06-24 16:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Maíra Canal
Cc: David Gow, Brendan Higgins, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
KUnit Development, open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK,
Shuah Khan
On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 7:12 AM Maíra Canal <maira.canal@usp.br> wrote:
>
> On 6/24/22 04:55, 'David Gow' via KUnit Development wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 8:12 AM 'Daniel Latypov' via KUnit Development
> > <kunit-dev@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Now that kunit.py's --kunitconfig is repeatable, let's create a file to
> >> hold the various options needed to enable coverage under UML.
> >>
> >> This can be used like so:
> >> $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run \
> >> --kunitconfig=tools/testing/kunit/configs/all_tests_uml.config \
> >> --kunitconfig=tools/testing/kunit/configs/coverage_uml.config \
> >> --make_options=CC=/usr/bin/gcc-6
> >>
> >> which on my system is enough to get coverage working [1].
> >>
>
> It's great to see this coming to KUnit! As I was testing this series, I
> wasn't able to generate the coverage stats with GCC11. I got a linking
> error from ld:
>
> ERROR:root:/usr/bin/ld:
> /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/11/libgcov.a(_gcov.o): in function
> `mangle_path':
> (.text+0x19f0): multiple definition of `mangle_path';
> fs/seq_file.o:/home/mairacanal/linux/.kunit/../fs/seq_file.c:441: first
> defined here
> collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
>
> By changing the name of the function to `seq_mangle_path`, it is
> possible to solve the linking error and run the tests. But, anyway, no
> .gcda files are generated.
>
> I checked out, and this is a known issue that was already discussed in
> this series [1] (but I guess it didn't move on).
There's the two main issues I knew about and that you noted.
* no gcda files produced (gcc 7+)
* seq_mangle_path (I don't remember, gcc 8 or 9+?)
The latter can be worked around locally fairly easily, as you also found.
The former is due to how the exit handlers work, iirc.
I didn't know about [1], but it also mentions the exit handlers issue.
However, from the sounds of [2], it seems like it might be a dead end for now :\
So I wouldn't hold onto hope of using modern GCC versions with this.
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/d36ea54d8c0a8dd706826ba844a6f27691f45d55.camel@sipsolutions.net/
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-06-24 16:13 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-06-24 0:12 [PATCH 1/2] kunit: tool: make --kunitconfig repeatable, blindly concat Daniel Latypov
2022-06-24 0:12 ` [PATCH 2/2] kunit: add coverage_uml.config to enable GCOV on UML Daniel Latypov
2022-06-24 7:55 ` David Gow
2022-06-24 14:12 ` Maíra Canal
2022-06-24 16:13 ` Daniel Latypov
2022-06-24 7:55 ` [PATCH 1/2] kunit: tool: make --kunitconfig repeatable, blindly concat David Gow
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).