> -----Original Message----- > From: Harinder Singh <sharinder@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Hello Tim, > > Thanks for the review comments. > > I incorporated your comments in v2 here: > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20211207054019.1455054-3-sharinder@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > Please see my comments below. > > On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 12:04 AM <Tim.Bird@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Harinder Singh <sharinder@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Sent: Thursday, December 2, 2021 9:25 PM > > > To: davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx; brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx; shuah@xxxxxxxxxx; corbet@xxxxxxx > > > Cc: linux-kselftest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kunit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Harinder > > > Singh <sharinder@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Subject: [PATCH v1 2/7] Documentation: KUnit: Rewrite getting started > > > > > > Clarify the purpose of kunit_tool and fixed consistency issues > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Harinder Singh <sharinder@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/start.rst | 192 ++++++++++++------------ > > > 1 file changed, 98 insertions(+), 94 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/start.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/start.rst > > > index 1e00f9226f74..04b6b6a37488 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/start.rst > > > +++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/start.rst > > > @@ -4,132 +4,131 @@ > > > Getting Started > > > =============== > > > > > > -Installing dependencies > > > +Installing Dependencies > > > ======================= > > > -KUnit has the same dependencies as the Linux kernel. As long as you can build > > > -the kernel, you can run KUnit. > > > +KUnit has the same dependencies as the Linux kernel. As long as you can > > > +build the kernel, you can run KUnit. > > > > > > -Running tests with the KUnit Wrapper > > > -==================================== > > > -Included with KUnit is a simple Python wrapper which runs tests under User Mode > > > -Linux, and formats the test results. > > > - > > > -The wrapper can be run with: > > > +Running tests with kunit_tool > > > +============================= > > > +kunit_tool is a Python script, which configures and build a kernel, runs > > > > build -> builds > > Done > > > > +tests, and formats the test results. From the kernel repository, you > > > +can run kunit_tool: > > > > > > .. code-block:: bash > > > > > > ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run > > > > > > -For more information on this wrapper (also called kunit_tool) check out the > > > -Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/kunit-tool.rst page. > > > +For more information on this wrapper, see: > > > +Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/kunit-tool.rst. > > > + > > > +Creating a ``.kunitconfig`` > > > +--------------------------- > > > +If you want to run a specific set of tests (rather than those listed in > > > +the KUnit ``defconfig``), you can provide Kconfig options in the > > > +``.kunitconfig`` file. > > > > I know you didn't change this sentence, but it never made sense to me. > > If we're in here changing the format, can we rewrite this to be more clear? > > > > What is the purpose of .kunitconfig? > > > > Here's an alternative wording (which I'm not sure is correct): > > > > By default, KUnit provides a ``defconfig`` which runs all of the unit > > tests. However, you can control which set of unit tests to run by creating > > a ``.kunitconfig`` file with kernel config options that enable only a specific > > set of tests and their dependencies. > > Rewrote the paragraph. > > > > This file contains the regular > > > +Kernel config with the specific test targets. The > > > > What does "This file contains the regular Kernel config" mean? > > Does it have all the entries from a standard .config file? > > Rewrote the paragraph. > > > My kunit default.config looks like this: > > CONFIG_KUNIT=y > > CONFIG_KUNIT_EXAMPLE_TEST=y > > CONFIG_KUNIT_ALL_TESTS=y > > > > I think it would be better to say something like: > > "This file contains the default configuration for KUnit, which is to run an example > > test and all unit tests" > > I am not sure what you mean. This part is not talking about the > default.config. We reworded the section in the next version. If it is > not clear please elaborate. I read the section in the v2 patch, and it is much improved. Thanks, -- Tim
