On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 1:27 PM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 9:38 PM David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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! > > +1 > > > > > > > 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). > > Getting rid of the arrays of arrays of suites sounds great to me. > > I could also pick that bit up, since I'm the person who most recently > added code that depends on it: > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/shuah/linux-kselftest.git/commit/?h=kunit&id=3b29021ddd10cfb6b2565c623595bd3b02036f33 I made the executor internally flatten the array-of-arrays into just an array to flush out the changes we'd need to make. I've sent that here: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20211013191320.2490913-1-dlatypov@xxxxxxxxxx After doing it and seeing the diffstat (2 files changed, 85 insertions(+), 178 deletions(-)), I'm actually tempted to have that go in as an actual patch. When we rework the kunit_test_suites section, we could then just drop the flattening helper function. > > > > > > +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
