On 5/8/19 6:44 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 05:58:49PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote: >> >> If KUnit is added to the kernel, and a subsystem that I am submitting >> code for has chosen to use KUnit instead of kselftest, then yes, I do >> *have* to use KUnit if my submission needs to contain a test for the >> code unless I want to convince the maintainer that somehow my case >> is special and I prefer to use kselftest instead of KUnittest. > > That's going to be between you and the maintainer. Today, if you want > to submit a substantive change to xfs or ext4, you're going to be > asked to create test for that new feature using xfstests. It doesn't > matter that xfstests isn't in the kernel --- if that's what is > required by the maintainer. Yes, that is exactly what I was saying. Please do not cut the pertinent parts of context that I am replying to. >>> supposed to be a simple way to run a large number of small tests that >>> for specific small components in a system. >> >> kselftest also supports running a subset of tests. That subset of tests >> can also be a large number of small tests. There is nothing inherent >> in KUnit vs kselftest in this regard, as far as I am aware. > The big difference is that kselftests are driven by a C program that > runs in userspace. Take a look at tools/testing/selftests/filesystem/dnotify_test.c > it has a main(int argc, char *argv) function. > > In contrast, KUnit are fragments of C code which run in the kernel; > not in userspace. This allows us to test internal functions inside > complex file system (such as the block allocator in ext4) directly. > This makes it *fundamentally* different from kselftest. No, totally incorrect. kselftests also supports in kernel modules as I mention in another reply to this patch. This is talking past each other a little bit, because your next reply is a reply to my email about modules. -Frank > > Cheers, > > - Ted >
