On 3/21/19 4:33 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote: > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 3:27 PM Logan Gunthorpe <logang@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >> 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. > > Yeah, it's unfortunate that the best way to do something often takes > so much longer. > >> >>> 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. > > Yeah, we really need to fix that; unfortunately, broadly addressing > that problem is really hard and will most likely take a long time. > >> >> 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! > > Great to hear! I was trying to get the next revision out this week, > but addressing some of the comments is taking a little longer than > expected. I should have something together fairly soon though > (hopefully next week). Good news is that next revision will be > non-RFC; most of the feedback has settled down and I think we are > ready to start figuring out how to merge it. Fingers crossed :-) > > Cheers I'll be out of the office next week and will not be able to review. Please hold off on any devicetree related files until after I review. Thanks, Frank
