On Mon, 14 Oct 2019, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 03:55:43PM +0100, Alan Maguire wrote: > > The current kunit execution model is to provide base kunit functionality > > and tests built-in to the kernel. The aim of this series is to allow > > building kunit itself and tests as modules. This in turn allows a > > simple form of selective execution; load the module you wish to test. > > In doing so, kunit itself (if also built as a module) will be loaded as > > an implicit dependency. > > > > Because this requires a core API modification - if a module delivers > > multiple suites, they must be declared with the kunit_test_suites() > > macro - we're proposing this patch as a candidate to be applied to the > > test tree before too many kunit consumers appear. We attempt to deal > > with existing consumers in patch 1. > > This is neat and makes sense to me. Thanks for taking a look! > However the ordering of the patches > seems odd. If modules depend on kunit module, then shouldn't that go > first? Ie, we want this to be bisectable in proper order. > The reasoning here is it seemed a more likely scenario that users mught build kunit built-in (CONFIG_KUNIT=y) along with test suites built as modules (CONFIG_KUNIT_TEST=m). So the intermediate state after patch 2 - tests buildable as modules while kunit is still built-in-only - made more sense to me as something users might do in practice so that's why I ordered things that way. I'm working on a new revision of the patchset though, so if you feel strongly about this shout and I'll try and accommodate the alternative ordering. Thanks! Alan > Luis >
