On 2019-03-21 4:07 p.m., Brendan Higgins wrote: > A couple of points, as for needing CONFIG_PCI; my plan to deal with > that type of thing has been that we would add support for a KUnit/UML > version that is just for KUnit. It would mock out the necessary bits > to provide a fake hardware implementation for anything that might > depend on it. I wrote a prototype for mocking/faking MMIO that I > presented to the list here[1]; it is not part of the current patchset > because we decided it would be best to focus on getting an MVP in, but > I plan on bringing it back up at some point. Anyway, what do you > generally think of this approach? Yes, I was wondering if that might be possible. I think that's a great approach but it will unfortunately take a lot of work before larger swaths of the kernel are testable in Kunit with UML. Having more common mocked infrastructure will be great by-product of it though. > Awesome, I looked at the code you posted and it doesn't look like you > have had too many troubles. One thing that stood out to me, why did > you need to put it in the kunit/ dir? Yeah, writing the code was super easy. Only after, did I realized I couldn't get it to easily build. Putting it in the kunit directory was necessary because nothing in the NTB tree builds unless CONFIG_NTB is set (see drivers/Makefile) and CONFIG_NTB depends on CONFIG_PCI. I didn't experiment to see how hard it would be to set CONFIG_NTB without CONFIG_PCI; I assumed it would be tricky. > I am looking forward to see what you think! Generally, I'm impressed and want to see this work in upstream as soon as possible so I can start to make use of it! Logan
