* [PATCH] kunit: tool: make --kunitconfig accept dirs, add lib/kunit fragment
@ 2021-02-22 22:52 Daniel Latypov
2021-02-23 5:38 ` David Gow
2021-04-02 9:32 ` Brendan Higgins
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Latypov @ 2021-02-22 22:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: brendanhiggins
Cc: davidgow, linux-kernel, kunit-dev, linux-kselftest, skhan, tytso,
Daniel Latypov
TL;DR
$ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=lib/kunit
Per suggestion from Ted [1], we can reduce the amount of typing by
assuming a convention that these files are named '.kunitconfig'.
In the case of [1], we now have
$ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=fs/ext4
Also add in such a fragment for kunit itself so we can give that as an
example more close to home (and thus less likely to be accidentally
broken).
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/YCNF4yP1dB97zzwD@mit.edu/
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
---
lib/kunit/.kunitconfig | 3 +++
tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py | 4 +++-
tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py | 2 ++
tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py | 6 ++++++
4 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
create mode 100644 lib/kunit/.kunitconfig
diff --git a/lib/kunit/.kunitconfig b/lib/kunit/.kunitconfig
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..9235b7d42d38
--- /dev/null
+++ b/lib/kunit/.kunitconfig
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+CONFIG_KUNIT=y
+CONFIG_KUNIT_TEST=y
+CONFIG_KUNIT_EXAMPLE_TEST=y
diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py
index d5144fcb03ac..5da8fb3762f9 100755
--- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py
+++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py
@@ -184,7 +184,9 @@ def add_common_opts(parser) -> None:
help='Run all KUnit tests through allyesconfig',
action='store_true')
parser.add_argument('--kunitconfig',
- help='Path to Kconfig fragment that enables KUnit tests',
+ help='Path to Kconfig fragment that enables KUnit tests.'
+ ' If given a directory, (e.g. lib/kunit), "/.kunitconfig" '
+ 'will get automatically appended.',
metavar='kunitconfig')
def add_build_opts(parser) -> None:
diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py
index f309a33256cd..89a7d4024e87 100644
--- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py
+++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py
@@ -132,6 +132,8 @@ class LinuxSourceTree(object):
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:
diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
index 1ad3049e9069..2e809dd956a7 100755
--- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
+++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
@@ -251,6 +251,12 @@ class LinuxSourceTreeTest(unittest.TestCase):
with tempfile.NamedTemporaryFile('wt') as kunitconfig:
tree = kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree('', kunitconfig_path=kunitconfig.name)
+ def test_dir_kunitconfig(self):
+ with tempfile.TemporaryDirectory('') as dir:
+ with open(os.path.join(dir, '.kunitconfig'), 'w') as f:
+ pass
+ tree = kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree('', kunitconfig_path=dir)
+
# TODO: add more test cases.
base-commit: b12b47249688915e987a9a2a393b522f86f6b7ab
--
2.30.0.617.g56c4b15f3c-goog
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] kunit: tool: make --kunitconfig accept dirs, add lib/kunit fragment
2021-02-22 22:52 [PATCH] kunit: tool: make --kunitconfig accept dirs, add lib/kunit fragment Daniel Latypov
@ 2021-02-23 5:38 ` David Gow
2021-04-02 9:32 ` Brendan Higgins
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: David Gow @ 2021-02-23 5:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Latypov
Cc: Brendan Higgins, Linux Kernel Mailing List, KUnit Development,
open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK, Shuah Khan,
Theodore Ts'o
On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 6:52 AM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> wrote:
>
> TL;DR
> $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=lib/kunit
>
> Per suggestion from Ted [1], we can reduce the amount of typing by
> assuming a convention that these files are named '.kunitconfig'.
>
> In the case of [1], we now have
> $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=fs/ext4
>
> Also add in such a fragment for kunit itself so we can give that as an
> example more close to home (and thus less likely to be accidentally
> broken).
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/YCNF4yP1dB97zzwD@mit.edu/
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
> ---
Thanks! I really like this.
I'd assumed we'd check if the path exists, and fall back to appending
".kunitconfig", but checking if it's a directory is better.
I tried this out with all the different combinations I could think of,
and it works well.
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Cheers,
-- David
> lib/kunit/.kunitconfig | 3 +++
> tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py | 4 +++-
> tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py | 2 ++
> tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py | 6 ++++++
> 4 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> create mode 100644 lib/kunit/.kunitconfig
>
> diff --git a/lib/kunit/.kunitconfig b/lib/kunit/.kunitconfig
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..9235b7d42d38
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/lib/kunit/.kunitconfig
> @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
> +CONFIG_KUNIT=y
> +CONFIG_KUNIT_TEST=y
> +CONFIG_KUNIT_EXAMPLE_TEST=y
> diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py
> index d5144fcb03ac..5da8fb3762f9 100755
> --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py
> +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py
> @@ -184,7 +184,9 @@ def add_common_opts(parser) -> None:
> help='Run all KUnit tests through allyesconfig',
> action='store_true')
> parser.add_argument('--kunitconfig',
> - help='Path to Kconfig fragment that enables KUnit tests',
> + help='Path to Kconfig fragment that enables KUnit tests.'
> + ' If given a directory, (e.g. lib/kunit), "/.kunitconfig" '
> + 'will get automatically appended.',
> metavar='kunitconfig')
>
> def add_build_opts(parser) -> None:
> diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py
> index f309a33256cd..89a7d4024e87 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py
> +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py
> @@ -132,6 +132,8 @@ class LinuxSourceTree(object):
> 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:
> diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
> index 1ad3049e9069..2e809dd956a7 100755
> --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
> +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
> @@ -251,6 +251,12 @@ class LinuxSourceTreeTest(unittest.TestCase):
> with tempfile.NamedTemporaryFile('wt') as kunitconfig:
> tree = kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree('', kunitconfig_path=kunitconfig.name)
>
> + def test_dir_kunitconfig(self):
> + with tempfile.TemporaryDirectory('') as dir:
> + with open(os.path.join(dir, '.kunitconfig'), 'w') as f:
> + pass
> + tree = kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree('', kunitconfig_path=dir)
> +
> # TODO: add more test cases.
>
>
>
> base-commit: b12b47249688915e987a9a2a393b522f86f6b7ab
> --
> 2.30.0.617.g56c4b15f3c-goog
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] kunit: tool: make --kunitconfig accept dirs, add lib/kunit fragment
2021-02-22 22:52 [PATCH] kunit: tool: make --kunitconfig accept dirs, add lib/kunit fragment Daniel Latypov
2021-02-23 5:38 ` David Gow
@ 2021-04-02 9:32 ` Brendan Higgins
2021-04-02 18:00 ` Shuah Khan
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Brendan Higgins @ 2021-04-02 9:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dlatypov
Cc: brendanhiggins, davidgow, kunit-dev, linux-kernel,
linux-kselftest, skhan, tytso
> TL;DR
> $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=lib/kunit
>
> Per suggestion from Ted [1], we can reduce the amount of typing by
> assuming a convention that these files are named '.kunitconfig'.
>
> In the case of [1], we now have
> $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=fs/ext4
>
> Also add in such a fragment for kunit itself so we can give that as an
> example more close to home (and thus less likely to be accidentally
> broken).
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/YCNF4yP1dB97zzwD@mit.edu/
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] kunit: tool: make --kunitconfig accept dirs, add lib/kunit fragment
2021-04-02 9:32 ` Brendan Higgins
@ 2021-04-02 18:00 ` Shuah Khan
2021-04-02 19:27 ` Daniel Latypov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Shuah Khan @ 2021-04-02 18:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Brendan Higgins, dlatypov
Cc: davidgow, kunit-dev, linux-kernel, linux-kselftest, tytso, Shuah Khan
On 4/2/21 3:32 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>> TL;DR
>> $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=lib/kunit
>>
>> Per suggestion from Ted [1], we can reduce the amount of typing by
>> assuming a convention that these files are named '.kunitconfig'.
>>
>> In the case of [1], we now have
>> $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=fs/ext4
>>
>> Also add in such a fragment for kunit itself so we can give that as an
>> example more close to home (and thus less likely to be accidentally
>> broken).
>>
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/YCNF4yP1dB97zzwD@mit.edu/
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
>
> Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
>
Should this be captured in documentation. Especially since this
is file is .* file.
Do you want to include doc in this patch? Might be better that way.
thanks,
-- Shuah
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] kunit: tool: make --kunitconfig accept dirs, add lib/kunit fragment
2021-04-02 18:00 ` Shuah Khan
@ 2021-04-02 19:27 ` Daniel Latypov
2021-04-02 19:31 ` Shuah Khan
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Latypov @ 2021-04-02 19:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Shuah Khan
Cc: Brendan Higgins, David Gow, KUnit Development,
Linux Kernel Mailing List, open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK,
Theodore Ts'o
On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 11:00 AM Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On 4/2/21 3:32 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> >> TL;DR
> >> $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=lib/kunit
> >>
> >> Per suggestion from Ted [1], we can reduce the amount of typing by
> >> assuming a convention that these files are named '.kunitconfig'.
> >>
> >> In the case of [1], we now have
> >> $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=fs/ext4
> >>
> >> Also add in such a fragment for kunit itself so we can give that as an
> >> example more close to home (and thus less likely to be accidentally
> >> broken).
> >>
> >> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/YCNF4yP1dB97zzwD@mit.edu/
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
> >
>
> Should this be captured in documentation. Especially since this
> is file is .* file.
>
> Do you want to include doc in this patch? Might be better that way.
It definitely should be documented, yes.
The only real example hadn't landed yet when I sent this patch
(fs/ext4/.kunitconfig was going in through the ext4 tree), but now
it's in linus/master.
There's still some uncertainties about what best practices for this
feature should be, i.e.
* how granular should these be?
* how should configs in parent dirs be handled? Should they be
supersets of all the subdirs?
* E.g. should fs/.kunitconfig be a superset of
fs/ext4/.kunitconfig and any other hypothetical subdir configs?
* Should we wait on saying "you should do this" until we have
"import" statements/other mechanisms to make this less manual?
* how should we handle non-UML tests, like the KASAN tests?
* ideally, kunit.py run will eventually support running tests on x86
(using qemu)
If it's fine with you, I was hoping to come back and add a section to
kunit/start.rst when we've had some of those questions more figured
out.
>
> thanks,
> -- Shuah
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] kunit: tool: make --kunitconfig accept dirs, add lib/kunit fragment
2021-04-02 19:27 ` Daniel Latypov
@ 2021-04-02 19:31 ` Shuah Khan
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Shuah Khan @ 2021-04-02 19:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Latypov
Cc: Brendan Higgins, David Gow, KUnit Development,
Linux Kernel Mailing List, open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK,
Theodore Ts'o, Shuah Khan
On 4/2/21 1:27 PM, Daniel Latypov wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 11:00 AM Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 4/2/21 3:32 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>>> TL;DR
>>>> $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=lib/kunit
>>>>
>>>> Per suggestion from Ted [1], we can reduce the amount of typing by
>>>> assuming a convention that these files are named '.kunitconfig'.
>>>>
>>>> In the case of [1], we now have
>>>> $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=fs/ext4
>>>>
>>>> Also add in such a fragment for kunit itself so we can give that as an
>>>> example more close to home (and thus less likely to be accidentally
>>>> broken).
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/YCNF4yP1dB97zzwD@mit.edu/
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
>>>
>>
>> Should this be captured in documentation. Especially since this
>> is file is .* file.
>>
>> Do you want to include doc in this patch? Might be better that way.
>
> It definitely should be documented, yes.
> The only real example hadn't landed yet when I sent this patch
> (fs/ext4/.kunitconfig was going in through the ext4 tree), but now
> it's in linus/master.
>
> There's still some uncertainties about what best practices for this
> feature should be, i.e.
> * how granular should these be?
> * how should configs in parent dirs be handled? Should they be
> supersets of all the subdirs?
> * E.g. should fs/.kunitconfig be a superset of
> fs/ext4/.kunitconfig and any other hypothetical subdir configs?
> * Should we wait on saying "you should do this" until we have
> "import" statements/other mechanisms to make this less manual?
> * how should we handle non-UML tests, like the KASAN tests?
> * ideally, kunit.py run will eventually support running tests on x86
> (using qemu)
>
> If it's fine with you, I was hoping to come back and add a section to
> kunit/start.rst when we've had some of those questions more figured
> out.
>
Sound good. I will apply this patch and you can document later.
thanks,
-- Shuah
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-04-02 19:31 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-02-22 22:52 [PATCH] kunit: tool: make --kunitconfig accept dirs, add lib/kunit fragment Daniel Latypov
2021-02-23 5:38 ` David Gow
2021-04-02 9:32 ` Brendan Higgins
2021-04-02 18:00 ` Shuah Khan
2021-04-02 19:27 ` Daniel Latypov
2021-04-02 19:31 ` Shuah Khan
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).