Quoting Daniel Latypov (2022-02-24 15:21:57) > On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 2:54 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Quoting Daniel Latypov (2022-02-23 14:50:59) > > > On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 2:56 AM Maxime Ripard <maxime@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Let's test various parts of the rate-related clock API with the kunit > > > > testing framework. > > > > > > > > Cc: kunit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > Suggested-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Tested-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Looks good to me on the KUnit side. > > > Two small nits below. > > > > > > FYI, I computed the incremental coverage for this series, i.e.: > > > 1) applied the full series > > > 2) computed the absolute coverage > > > > > > $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=drivers/clk > > > --make_options=CC=/usr/bin/gcc-6 --kconfig_add=CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL=y > > > --kconfig_add=CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO=y --kconfig_add=CONFIG_GCOV=y > > > $ lcov -t "clk_tests" -o coverage.info -c -d .kunit/ --gcov-tool=/usr/bin/gcov-6 > > > > This is cool. Thanks! Is it possible to add some 'coverage' command to > > kunit so we don't have to recall this invocation? > > This is documented at > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/dev-tools/kunit/running_tips.html#generating-code-coverage-reports-under-uml > It also includes pointers on how to use lcov to process the .gcda files. > I wrote it before --kconfig_add existed, so it just looks a bit different. > > The main blockers to directly supporting this in kunit.py are > 1.) this only works on UML > 2.) it needs gcc-6 or lower (and the kernel's min version is 5.1, iirc)... > 3.) in kernels older than 5.14, this requires some more hacks to get > working. So for the large portion of us stuck dealing with somewhat > older kernels, we'd have to do stuff manually anyway. > > For #1, we'd need different kconfig options and kunit.py's QEMU would > need some sort of userspace (busybox should be sufficient). > For #2, I don't recall what the precise issues were anymore. But I > think there were some more issues in gcc 8 or 9... :( > > > > > > > > > 3) intersected that with the total diff > > > > This would also be cool to do automatically with a revision range. > > Hmm, can you elaborate? > I assume you mean other revision ranges beyond this patch set? I mean somehow to tell kunit.py that I want incremental coverage information for a git revision range so that I can say something like kunit.py incremental HEAD~3..HEAD and have it tell me the line coverage.
