On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 2:21 PM Michał Winiarski <michal.winiarski@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > So I'm a bit doubtful about this particular statement, but if you have > > tried it out and it works well, then that's good too. > > > > I just think the primary benefit of UML is faster compilation and it > > being somewhat lighter than bringing up a VM. > > It was good enough to debug any problems that I accidentally introduced > during the conversion, but perhaps that was simple enough usecase to not > encounter SIGSEGVs. Ah, that's good to know. > > I don't thing that would work. IIUC, currently the runner is operating > on taint - there's a subset of taints that it considers "fatal" > (including TAINT_WARN). > > If we have tests that WARN, perhaps we could introduce extra flag to the > test state on per-test or per-testsuite level, to mark that the test > wants to fail-on-warn? > Then we would only fail if the test opted in (or other way around? if > opt-out makes more sense and we have more tests that actually don't WARN > as part of their normal test logic). Yeah, I think this would work. I chatted with Brendan and David about this and suggested this approach. This definitely seems useful, so I definitely think we should keep it in mind, even if we don't get an implementation done in the near future. > > It's applied on top of DRM subsystem integration tree (drm-tip): > https://cgit.freedesktop.org/drm-tip > At that time it was already based on v5.16. Ack, thanks! I might take another stab at applying the patches locally, but based on my brief skim over them, everything seemed fine from a KUnit point of view. It's quite clear you've read over KUnit pretty thoroughly (e.g. figured out how to create new managed resources, etc.). So I probably won't have any feedback to give. > > Most of that 17-18s is taken by two subtest of drm_mm_tests: > > [22:17:19] ============================================================ > [22:17:19] ================= drm_mm_tests (1 subtest) ================= > [22:17:27] [PASSED] test_insert > [22:17:27] ================== [PASSED] drm_mm_tests =================== > [22:17:27] ============================================================ > [22:17:27] Testing complete. Passed: 1, Failed: 0, Crashed: 0, Skipped: > 0, Errors: 0 > [22:17:27] Elapsed time: 10.400s total, 0.001s configuring, 2.419s > building, 7.947s running > > [22:17:42] ============================================================ > [22:17:42] ================= drm_mm_tests (1 subtest) ================= > [22:17:50] [PASSED] test_replace > [22:17:50] ================== [PASSED] drm_mm_tests =================== > [22:17:50] ============================================================ > [22:17:50] Testing complete. Passed: 1, Failed: 0, Crashed: 0, Skipped: > 0, Errors: 0 > [22:17:50] Elapsed time: 10.272s total, 0.001s configuring, 2.492s > building, 7.776s running > > Their runtime can be controlled with max_prime and max_iterations > modparams - I left the default values intact, but we can tweak them to > speed things up if needed. Ah, I was not concerned about test runtime at all. I was just suggesting that real-time output would be useful if you didn't have it already.
