On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 3:27 PM Logan Gunthorpe <logang@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 2019-03-21 4:07 p.m., Brendan Higgins wrote: > > A couple of points, as for needing CONFIG_PCI; my plan to deal with > > that type of thing has been that we would add support for a KUnit/UML > > version that is just for KUnit. It would mock out the necessary bits > > to provide a fake hardware implementation for anything that might > > depend on it. I wrote a prototype for mocking/faking MMIO that I > > presented to the list here[1]; it is not part of the current patchset > > because we decided it would be best to focus on getting an MVP in, but > > I plan on bringing it back up at some point. Anyway, what do you > > generally think of this approach? > > Yes, I was wondering if that might be possible. I think that's a great > approach but it will unfortunately take a lot of work before larger > swaths of the kernel are testable in Kunit with UML. Having more common > mocked infrastructure will be great by-product of it though. Yeah, it's unfortunate that the best way to do something often takes so much longer. > > > Awesome, I looked at the code you posted and it doesn't look like you > > have had too many troubles. One thing that stood out to me, why did > > you need to put it in the kunit/ dir? > > Yeah, writing the code was super easy. Only after, did I realized I > couldn't get it to easily build. Yeah, we really need to fix that; unfortunately, broadly addressing that problem is really hard and will most likely take a long time. > > Putting it in the kunit directory was necessary because nothing in the > NTB tree builds unless CONFIG_NTB is set (see drivers/Makefile) and > CONFIG_NTB depends on CONFIG_PCI. I didn't experiment to see how hard it > would be to set CONFIG_NTB without CONFIG_PCI; I assumed it would be tricky. > > > I am looking forward to see what you think! > > Generally, I'm impressed and want to see this work in upstream as soon > as possible so I can start to make use of it! Great to hear! I was trying to get the next revision out this week, but addressing some of the comments is taking a little longer than expected. I should have something together fairly soon though (hopefully next week). Good news is that next revision will be non-RFC; most of the feedback has settled down and I think we are ready to start figuring out how to merge it. Fingers crossed :-) Cheers
