Hi Rae, Em Thu, 13 Jul 2023 17:31:19 -0400 Rae Moar <rmoar@xxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 10:29 AM Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > As an example for the new documentation tool, add a documentation > > for drm_buddy_test. > > > > I opted to place this on a completely different directory, in order > > to make easier to test the feature with: > > > > $ make SPHINXDIRS="tests" htmldocs > > > > Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > > > To avoid mailbombing on a large number of people, only mailing lists were > > C/C on the cover. > > See [PATCH RFC 0/2] at: > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1689171160.git.mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > Documentation/index.rst | 2 +- > > Documentation/tests/index.rst | 6 ++++++ > > Documentation/tests/kunit.rst | 5 +++++ > > drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_buddy_test.c | 12 ++++++++++++ > > 4 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > create mode 100644 Documentation/tests/index.rst > > create mode 100644 Documentation/tests/kunit.rst > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/index.rst b/Documentation/index.rst > > index 9dfdc826618c..80a6ce14a61a 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/index.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/index.rst > > @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ Various other manuals with useful information for all > > kernel developers. > > fault-injection/index > > livepatch/index > > rust/index > > - > > + test/index > > > > User-oriented documentation > > =========================== > > diff --git a/Documentation/tests/index.rst b/Documentation/tests/index.rst > > new file mode 100644 > > index 000000000000..bfc39eb5c0aa > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/Documentation/tests/index.rst > > @@ -0,0 +1,6 @@ > > +======================== > > +Kunit documentation test > > +======================== > > + > > +.. toctree:: > > + kunit > > diff --git a/Documentation/tests/kunit.rst b/Documentation/tests/kunit.rst > > new file mode 100644 > > index 000000000000..6ffc151988a0 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/Documentation/tests/kunit.rst > > @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ > > +Kunit tests > > +----------- > > + > > +.. include-test:: drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_buddy_test.c > > + > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_buddy_test.c > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_buddy_test.c > > index 09ee6f6af896..dd6c5afd6cd6 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_buddy_test.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_buddy_test.c > > @@ -737,6 +737,18 @@ static int drm_buddy_suite_init(struct kunit_suite > > *suite) > > return 0; > > } > > > > +/** > > + * KTEST_SUITE: set of tests for drm buddy alloc > > + * Scope: drm subsystem > > + * Mega feature: drm > > + * Feature: buddy_alloc > > + * > > + * KTEST_TEST: drm_test_buddy_alloc_%s > > + * Description: Run DRM buddy allocation %arg[1] test > > + * > > + * arg[1].values: limit, range, optimistic, smoke, pathological > > + */ > > > Hi! > > This is such a cool patch series. I just have a few comments related to the > output. Thank you for your comments! Sorry for not answering earlier. I took some vacations and this series ended sleeping over other tasks on my todo list. Also, before sending another version, I wanted to have the test_list.py changes to make it generic enough to be merged on IGT, to avoid having a fork of it. Those got merged today. > In the html output the tests are listed as: > ktest@drm_buddy_test@… > > I wonder if instead of using the file name of “drm_buddy_test” this could > possibly be the suite name, “drm_buddy”, as this is what users will call > when using kunit.py to run the tests. Although "drm_buddy_test" is also the > module name so I don't mind it too much. But in the future the file name > and module name are not guaranteed to be the same for other tests. > > Most preferably, there would be a reference to the kunit suite name, file > name, and the module name. I guess it shouldn't be hard to do such change in a way that it won't affect its usage on IGT. We need to define what would be the best pattern. As this can be used for both kunit and selftests, I would place kunit at the beginning. Currently, we're using: kunit@<base file name without .c>@<test_name> Some possible patterns would be: kunit@<base file name without .c>@<suite name>@<test_name> kunit@<subsystem>@<base file name without .c>@<suite name>@<test_name> kunit@<subsystem>@<suite name>@<test_name> Would do you think it would work best? > This may be difficult to implement as these can all differ. I am currently > working on the KUnit Attribute framework which saves the module name and I > am thinking about also saving the file path as a future attribute. This > could be a helpful framework for the KUnit tests specifically. > > I am not sure how easy it would be to access c objects/functions using this > system. I would prefer not. C language allows lots of flexibility with macros, making it hard to write a parser to read those C objects from the source. We have this at kernel-doc. As one of the people that did some work there, I can say that that several tricks are needed to keep this working. On the other hand, it should be easy to use the TestList class from test_list.py at kunit.py. So, kunit.py could use the data that came from the documentation directly. > Finally, I was wondering if it is the intention to put a list of all kunit > tests that use this new feature into tests/kunit.rst or would this be > broken up in some way IMO, it makes sense to break this per subsystem, and have an auto-generated index.rst pointing to the entire set of documents. We're already storing the subsystem at the documentation macros, so, IMO, it should shouldn't be hard to implement it. Regards, Mauro
