Linux-kselftest Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@google.com>
To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>,
	Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
	"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
	<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca,
	kunit-dev@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-kselftest/test v2] ext4: add kunit test for decoding extended timestamps
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 19:38:10 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAXuY3rPV7Gz=QhTKnkHS3nJFytAB5HkVWsTkR+KRo0mw-epsQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191011131902.GC16225@mit.edu>

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 6:19 AM Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 03:05:43AM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > That's an interesting point. Should we try to establish a pattern for
> > how tests should be configured? My *very long term* goal is to
> > eventually have tests able to be built and run without any kind of
> > kernel of any kind, but I don't think that having a single config for
> > all tests in a subsystem gets in the way of that, so I don't think I
> > have a strong preference in terms of what I want to do.
> >
> > Nevertheless, I think establishing patterns is good. Do we want to try
> > to follow Ted's preference as a general rule from now on?
>
> As I suggested on another thread (started on kunit-dev, but Brendan
> has cc'ed in linux-kselftest), I think it might really work well if
> "make kunit" runs all of the kunit tests automatically.  As we add
> more kunit tests, finding all of the CONFIG options so they can be
> added to the kunitconfig file is going to be hard, so kunit.py really
> needs an --allconfig which does this automatically.
>
> Along these lines, perhaps we should state that as a general rule the
> CONFIG option for Kunit tests should only depend on KUINIT, and use
> select to enable other dependencies.  i.e., for the ext4 kunit tests,
> it should look like this:
>
> config EXT4_KUNIT_TESTS
>         bool "KUnit test for ext4 inode"
>         select EXT4_FS
>         depends on KUNIT
> ...
Done

> In the current patch, we use "depends on EXT4_FS", which meant that
> when I first added "CONFIG_EXT4_KUNIT_TESTS=y" to the kunitconfig
> file, I got the following confusing error message:
>
> % ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py  run
> Regenerating .config ...
> ERROR:root:Provided Kconfig is not contained in validated .config!
>
> Using "select EXT4_FS" makes it much easier to enable the ext4 kunit
> tests in kunitconfig.  At the moment requiring that we two lines to
> kunitconfig to enable ext4 isn't _that_ bad:
>
> CONFIG_EXT4_FS=y
> CONFIG_EXT4_KUNIT_TESTS=y
>
> but over time, if many subsystems start adding unit tests, the
> overhead of managing the kunitconfig file is going to get unwieldy.
> Hence my suggestion that we just make all Kunit CONFIG options depend
> only on CONFIG_KUNIT.
>
> > I agree with Iurii. I don't think that this example alone warrants
> > adding support for being able to read test data in from a separate
> > file (I would also like some clarification here on what is meant by
> > reading in from a separate file). I can imagine some scenarios where
> > that might make sense, but I think it would be better to get more
> > examples before trying to support that use case.
>
> So what I was thinking might happen is that for some of the largest
> unit tests before I would transition to deciding that xfstests was the
> better way to go, I *might* have a small, 100k ext4 file system which
> would checked into the kernel sources as fs/ext4/kunit_test.img, and
> there would be a makefile rule that would turn that into
> fs/ext4/kunit_test_img.c file that might look something like:
>
> const ext4_kunit_test_img[] = {
>       0xde, ...
>
> But I'm not sure I actually want to go down that path.  It would
> certainly better from a test design perspective to create test mocks
> at a higher layer, such as ext4_iget() and ext4_read_block_bitmap().
>
> The problem is that quite a bit of code in ext4 would have to be
> *extensively* refactored in order to allow for easy test mocking,
> since we have calls to sb_bread, ext4_bread(), submit_bh(), etc.,
> sprinkled alongside the code logic that we would want to test.
>
> So using a small test image and making the cut line be at the buffer
> cache layer is going to be much, *much* simpler at least in the short
> term.  So the big question is how much of an investment (or technical
> debt paydown) do I want to do right away, versus taking a shortcut to
> get better unit test coverage more quickly, and then do further tech
> debt reduction later?
>
>                                        - Ted

  reply index

Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-10-10  2:39 Iurii Zaikin
2019-10-10  3:46 ` Tim.Bird
2019-10-10 16:45   ` Iurii Zaikin
2019-10-10 20:29     ` Tim.Bird
2019-10-10 23:49       ` Iurii Zaikin
2019-10-10 17:11 ` Shuah Khan
2019-10-10 22:13   ` Iurii Zaikin
2019-10-11 10:05     ` Brendan Higgins
2019-10-11 13:19       ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2019-10-12  2:38         ` Iurii Zaikin [this message]
2019-10-16 22:18         ` Brendan Higgins
2019-10-16 23:26           ` Shuah Khan
2019-10-17  0:07             ` Iurii Zaikin
2019-10-17 12:08             ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2019-10-17 22:25               ` Tim.Bird
2019-10-17 22:56                 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2019-10-17 23:40                   ` Tim.Bird
2019-10-18  1:40                     ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2019-10-18  2:40                       ` Tim.Bird
2019-10-18 15:27                         ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2019-10-18 20:24                           ` Shuah Khan
2019-10-18  1:12                 ` Brendan Higgins
2019-10-18  1:30                   ` Tim.Bird
2019-10-17 22:49               ` Shuah Khan
2019-10-17 23:07                 ` Iurii Zaikin
2019-10-17 23:12                   ` Shuah Khan
2019-10-17 23:27                     ` Iurii Zaikin
2019-10-17 23:42                       ` Shuah Khan
2019-10-17 23:54                       ` Tim.Bird
2019-10-17 23:59                         ` Shuah Khan
2019-10-18  0:11                         ` Iurii Zaikin
2019-10-18  0:38                           ` Tim.Bird
2019-10-18  1:06                             ` Iurii Zaikin

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically 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='CAAXuY3rPV7Gz=QhTKnkHS3nJFytAB5HkVWsTkR+KRo0mw-epsQ@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=yzaikin@google.com \
    --cc=adilger.kernel@dilger.ca \
    --cc=brendanhiggins@google.com \
    --cc=kunit-dev@googlegroups.com \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=skhan@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    /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

Linux-kselftest Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/0 linux-kselftest/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linux-kselftest linux-kselftest/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest \
		linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org linux-kselftest@archiver.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index linux-kselftest

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-kselftest


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/ public-inbox