From: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
To: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Cc: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
KUnit Development <kunit-dev@googlegroups.com>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
maxime@cerno.tech
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: kunit: update kconfig options needed for UML coverage
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2022 12:54:30 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFd5g45f3X3xF2vz2BkTHRqOC4uW6GZxtUUMaP5mwwbK8uNVtA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGS_qxq_vFtGS4BGieZz8L3QH7rZ7ZN25pGYmjWWoXbTGOKC9A@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 12:35 PM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 9:56 PM David Gow <davidgow@google.com> wrote:
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> > > # Append coverage options to the current config
> > > - $ echo -e "CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL=y\nCONFIG_DEBUG_INFO=y\nCONFIG_GCOV=y" >> .kunit/.kunitconfig
> > > + $ 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
> >
> > Would we want to instead use a chain of --kconfig_add arguments? (I
> > think there are advantages either way...)
>
> I've been considering this ever since the --kconfig_add patch was accepted.
> It's more compatible w/ commands using --kunitconfig, but it also
> looks very verbose.
> E.g. it looks like
>
> $ tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --make_options=CC=/usr/bin/gcc-6
> --kconfig_add=CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO=y
> --kconfig_add=CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_DWARF_TOOLCHAIN_DEFAULT=y
> --kconfig_add=CONFIG_GCOV=y
I don't think it's *that* much more verbose, but I see your point. I
personally prefer this, but not enough to argue about it.
> Neither looks very appealing to me, so I've just kept it as-is for now.
>
> Maybe there's something we can do to make this easier (e.g. allowing
> --kunitconfig to be repeated and mergable)?
I would like --kunitconfig to be repeadable and mergable.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-03-28 16:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-03-26 0:33 [PATCH] Documentation: kunit: update kconfig options needed for UML coverage Daniel Latypov
2022-03-26 2:56 ` David Gow
2022-03-28 16:35 ` Daniel Latypov
2022-03-28 16:54 ` Brendan Higgins [this message]
2022-03-28 18:58 ` Daniel Latypov
2022-03-28 19:36 ` Brendan Higgins
2022-03-28 7:58 ` Maxime Ripard
2022-03-28 16:27 ` Brendan Higgins
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=CAFd5g45f3X3xF2vz2BkTHRqOC4uW6GZxtUUMaP5mwwbK8uNVtA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=brendanhiggins@google.com \
--cc=davidgow@google.com \
--cc=dlatypov@google.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kunit-dev@googlegroups.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maxime@cerno.tech \
--cc=skhan@linuxfoundation.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 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).