On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 9:22 PM David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 8:45 AM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > This is long overdue. > > > > There are several things that aren't nailed down (in-tree > > .kunitconfig's), or partially broken (GCOV on UML), but having them > > documented, warts and all, is better than having nothing. > > > > This covers a bunch of the more recent features > > * kunit_filter_glob > > * kunit.py run --kunitconfig > > * slightly more detail on building tests as modules > > * CONFIG_KUNIT_DEBUGFS > > > > By my count, the only headline features now not mentioned are the KASAN > > integration and KernelCI json output support (kunit.py run --json). > > > > And then it also discusses how to get code coverage reports under UML > > and non-UML since this is a question people have repeatedly asked. > > > > Non-UML coverage collection is no different from normal, but we should > > probably explicitly call this out. > > > > As for UML, I was able to get it working again with two small hacks.* > > E.g. with CONFIG_KUNIT=y && CONFIG_KUNIT_ALL_TESTS=y > > Overall coverage rate: > > lines......: 15.1% (18294 of 120776 lines) > > functions..: 16.8% (1860 of 11050 functions) > > > > Note: this doesn't document --alltests since this is not stable yet. > > Hopefully being run more frequently as part of KernelCI will help... > > > > *Using gcc/gcov-6 and not using uml_abort() in os_dump_core(). > > I've documented these hacks in "Notes" but left TODOs for > > brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx who tracked down the runtime issue in GCC. > > To be clear: these are not issues specific to KUnit, but rather to UML. > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > I'm very happy with this now: all my issues with the previous versions > are addressed. I'm particularly excited to have code coverage > documented somewhere. I just realized I forgot to commit the updated wording you requested wrt uml_abort() in the patch itself. Sending a v4 now. > > Assuming Brendan's happy with the TODOs being there, I think this is > ready to go. > > I also built this with Sphinx and gave it a quick look, and it all > looks good there as well. > > Therefore, this is: > > Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cheers, > -- David
