On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 6:12 PM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 3/21/19 4:33 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote: > > 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 > > I'll be out of the office next week and will not be able to review. > Please hold off on any devicetree related files until after I review. Will do.
