On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 04:52:52PM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote: > So you, me, Luis, David, and a whole bunch of other people have been > thinking about this problem for a while. What if we just put > kunitconfig fragments in directories along side the test files they > enable? > > For example, we could add a file to fs/ext4/kunitconfig which contains: > > CONFIG_EXT4_FS=y > CONFIG_EXT4_KUNIT_TESTS=y > > We could do something similar in fs/jdb2, etc. > > Obviously some logically separate KUnit tests (different maintainers, > different Kconfig symbols, etc) reside in the same directory, for > these we could name the kunitconfig file something like > lib/list-test.kunitconfig (not a great example because lists are > always built into Linux), but you get the idea. > > Then like Ted suggested, if you call kunit.py run foo/bar, then > > if bar is a directory, then kunit.py will look for foo/bar/kunitconfig > > if bar is a file ending with .kunitconfig like foo/bar.kunitconfig, > then it will use that kunitconfig > > if bar is '...' (foo/...) then kunit.py will look for all kunitconfigs > underneath foo. > > Once all the kunitconfigs have been resolved, they will be merged into > the .kunitconfig. If they can be successfully merged together, the new > .kunitconfig will then continue to function as it currently does. I was thinking along a similar set of lines this morning. One thing I'd add in addition to your suggestion to that is to change how .kunitconfig is interpreted such that CONFIG_KUNIT=y is always implied, so it doesn't have to be specified explicitly, and that if a line like: fs/ext4 or mm etc. occurs, that will cause a include of the Kunitconfig (I'd using a capitalized version of the filename like Kconfig, so that it's easier to see in a directory listing) in the named directory. That way, .kunitconfig is backwards compatible, but it also allows people to put a one-liner into .kunitconfig to enable the unit tests for that particular directory. What do folks think? Cheers, - Ted
