On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 9:26 AM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 04:17:13PM -0800, Brendan Higgins wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 1:55 PM Kieran Bingham > > <kieran.bingham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Oh, yep, you are right. Does that mean we should bother at all with a defconfig? > > If one wanted a qemu enabled type of kernel and also for kuniut one > could imply run: > > make kvmconfig > make kunitconfig > > That would get what you suggest above of default "bells and whistles" > and keep the kuniut as a fragment. > > Hm, actually the kvmconfig doesn't really enable the required fragments > for qemu, so perhaps one would be good. It would have the serial stuff > for instance. > > > Luis, I know you said you wanted one. I am thinking just stick with > > the UML one? The downside there is we then get stuck having to > > maintain the fragment and the defconfig. I right now (in the new > > revision I am working on) have the Python kunit_tool copy the > > defconfig if no kunitconfig is provided and a flag is set. It would be > > pretty straightforward to make it merge in the fragment instead. > > Up to you in the end. I don't really have any opinions on the matter; I don't really use defconfigs in any of my workflows. So, I just want whatever is easier for people. The thing that makes the most sense to me would be to provide a "merge-kunitconfig" option similar to what kselftest does, but I don't intend on doing that in the initial patchset, unless someone really thinks that I should do it. So in the meantime, I guess provide both since that gives people options? In anycase, I just (finally) sent out v4, so I suggest we continue the discussion over there. Cheers
