On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 10:10 AM Jeremy Kerr <jk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi David, > > > In any case, thanks a lot -- this is awesome. > > Oh neat, glad it's useful! > > I'm happy to keep hacking on this if it's in a direction that makes > sense for kunit in general. As an approximate plan, I can fix the UML > breakages, then work on some resulting simplifications for tree-wide > initialisers (we'd no longer need the null-terminated arrays of suites > everywhere, for example). > +dlatypov, +kunit-dev Yeah, we think this would be a much better direction for KUnit to go for modules. If you're happy to work on it, that'd be great! Brendan, Daniel (CCed), and I would be more than willing to help out with questions, reviews, etc, as well. On the other hand, if you're really busy and you'd rather we pick this up, improved module support has been on the to-do list for ages, so we could bump it up the list a bit and finish it off. The UML breakages were mostly pretty simple: our default config doesn't require module support at all, so the various functions should just need to go behind the appropriate #ifdefs. A quick way to test it is just to run './tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run' from the kernel source directory, which will configure, build, and run everything in the .kunit builddir. Cheers, -- David
