[RFC v3 14/19] Documentation: kunit: add documentation for KUnit

[kieran.bingham at ideasonboard.com (Kieran Bingham)]

Hi Brendan,

On 09/02/2019 00:56, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 4:16 AM Kieran Bingham
> <kieran.bingham at ideasonboard.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Brendan,
>>
>> On 03/12/2018 23:53, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 7:45 PM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof at kernel.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 01:56:37PM +0000, Kieran Bingham wrote:
>>>>> Hi Brendan,
>>>>>
>>>>> Please excuse the top posting, but I'm replying here as I'm following
>>>>> the section "Creating a kunitconfig" in Documentation/kunit/start.rst.
>>>>>
>>>>> Could the three line kunitconfig file live under say
>>>>>        arch/um/configs/kunit_defconfig?
>>
>>
>> Further consideration to this topic - I mentioned putting it in
>>   arch/um/configs
>>
>> - but I think this is wrong.
>>
>> We now have a location for config-fragments, which is essentially what
>> this is, under kernel/configs
>>
>> So perhaps an addition as :
>>
>>  kernel/configs/kunit.config
>>
>> Would be more appropriate - and less (UM) architecture specific.
> 
> Sorry for the long radio silence.
> 
> I just got around to doing this and I found that there are some
> configs that are desirable to have when running KUnit under x86 in a
> VM, but not UML. 

Should this behaviour you mention be handled by the KCONFIG depends flags?

depends on (KUMIT & UML)
or
depends on (KUNIT & !UML)

or such?

An example of which configs you are referring to would help to
understand the issue perhaps.


> So should we have one that goes in with
> config-fragments and others that go into architectures? Another idea,
> it would be nice to have a KUnit config that runs all known tests

This might also be a config option added to the tests directly like
COMPILE_TEST perhaps?

(Not sure what that would be called though ... KUNIT_RUNTIME_TEST?)

I think that might be more maintainable as otherwise each new test would
have to modify the {min,def}{config,fragment} ...


> (this probably won't work in practice once we start testing mutually
> exclusive things or things with lots of ifdeffery, but it probably
> something we should try to maintain as best as we can?); this probably
> shouldn't go in with the fragments, right?

Sounds like we agree there :)

> 
> I will be sending another revision out soon, but I figured I might be
> able to catch you before I did so.

Thanks for thinking of me.
I hope I managed to reply in time to help and not hinder your progress.

-- 
Regards
--
Kieran