From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C90B6C2BB1D for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 15:45:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0DB220754 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 15:45:56 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1584114356; bh=/N1wgZESVKWP6KVjaSbiwILH85i8xFK95LFFyo4x1rE=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=lpDlfOQ9ynuWGOy4dU8W+aOeOeSljy0cR0MIXZY0ilROtMSTMO1n6nnUm7YRZ6vSY j/wumy5r5fFofvzK1LO7Gbs3nO+jskOD0LiRtK/srdgpKOIMqYSorhSKawdE65yXz+ ydZDtH0G/YJ9wQSdaumZTQZiZ2HHsMGIvnbw1beE= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726947AbgCMPp4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Mar 2020 11:45:56 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:50058 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726926AbgCMPpz (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Mar 2020 11:45:55 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.112] (c-24-9-64-241.hsd1.co.comcast.net [24.9.64.241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DF5E920724; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 15:45:54 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1584114355; bh=/N1wgZESVKWP6KVjaSbiwILH85i8xFK95LFFyo4x1rE=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=D3DD6qqKms7TlPEM19TNtCICsddIc5yjc0fPsOHqZPjCg6WKD+DgYgCS+1XRBAmNN HRdVgTJlHagJl727dl3lDQQCGQCu+X/vcpwxqYa4CLMoICBWruIilp8v/zykq3TZOk P6HBO+KYOjJVSOegcXgBT3z1N69A4EK2S0T4M3T4= Subject: Re: [PATCH] kunit/kunit_kernel: Rebuild .config if .kunitconfig is modified To: Russell Currey , Brendan Higgins , David Gow Cc: SeongJae Park , "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" , KUnit Development , Linux Kernel Mailing List , SeongJae Park , Theodore Ts'o , Bjorn Helgaas , shuah References: <20200205021428.8007-1-sj38.park@gmail.com> <009fe3f5-7b27-46c4-90a7-ff97cbd8c931@www.fastmail.com> From: shuah Message-ID: Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 09:45:40 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <009fe3f5-7b27-46c4-90a7-ff97cbd8c931@www.fastmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kselftest-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org On 2/5/20 3:09 PM, Russell Currey wrote: > On Thu, Feb 6, 2020, at 7:00 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 9:58 AM David Gow wrote: >>> >>> One thing we'd like to do with kunit_tool is to make its functionality >>> a bit more independent: in particular, allowing the configuration, >>> running the kernel, and parsing the results to be done independently. >>> >>> If that's the case, it may make sense for "kunit.py run" or similar to >>> not do anything with the .config, and to relegate that to a separate >>> "configuration" step, which would allow someone to modify the >>> configuration themselves (e.g., using make menuconfig) and re-run the >>> tests, but also allow the config to be explicitly regenerated when >>> helpful. >>> >>> Exactly what that'd end up looking like (and to what extent we'd still >>> want to support a single command that'd do both) are still up in the >>> air: but I think a general "separation of concerns" like this is >>> probably the right path forward for kunit_tool. >> >> You and I have talked about splitting up kunit_tool's functionality >> before. I agree with the idea. >> >> I imagine it that we would have >> >> - configuration >> - running tests >> - dmesg/TAP parsing >> >> as separate runnable scripts. I think that would make it a lot easier >> for people with various test bed setups to reuse our code in their >> test harness. >> >> Nevertheless, I think it would also be nice to have, as Ted has >> previously suggested, a short easy to remember one line command that >> just works; it is easily said, and much harder to do, but I think it >> is at odds with the separation of functionality. I guess one solution >> might just be to have these three separate tools, and then the classic >> kunit.py script that combines the functionalities in a single step, or >> as Ted suggested we could have some sort of default "make kunit" >> command or something like that. I am not really sure what is best >> here. >> >> It doesn't address the problem of separation of functionality in >> anyway, but one way we could achieve the idea of having a command that >> just works, is by putting a line in MAINTAINERS file entries that have >> a command that a maintainer expects a submitter to run before sending >> a patch to LKML. That might at least make it possible to hack together >> a single line KUnit command for every relevant MAINTAINERS entry. >> (Obviously there is no reason we have to do this particular idea just >> for KUnit. We could do this for other tests as well.) Russel, I think >> this was your idea at LCA? > > Hi Brendan, it wasn't me, it was someone in the audience during questions in my > testing talk. I don't recall who. > > They were suggesting a script like get_maintainers - i.e. get_tests - that for a > given file/patch/commit it gives you a suggested set of tests, whether that's > KUnit you can run there and then, or selftests you can run once it's booted, > or maybe external test suites that are relevant. > I like this idea of get_tests type script that could be run separately as well as part of check_patch or get_maintainers will serve as a reminder or hint to patch submitter. We have some pieces in the MAINTAINERS file now. Selftest files are usually listed under subsystem entries. get_tests could leverage that and we will definitely more information to for a complete set of tests for a subsystem. thanks, -- Shuah