On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 9:56 PM David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > <snip> > > # Append coverage options to the current config > > - $ echo -e "CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL=y\nCONFIG_DEBUG_INFO=y\nCONFIG_GCOV=y" >> .kunit/.kunitconfig > > + $ echo -e "CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL=y\nCONFIG_DEBUG_INFO=y\nCONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_DWARF_TOOLCHAIN_DEFAULT=y\nCONFIG_GCOV=y" >> .kunit/.kunitconfig > > $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run > > Would we want to instead use a chain of --kconfig_add arguments? (I > think there are advantages either way...) I've been considering this ever since the --kconfig_add patch was accepted. It's more compatible w/ commands using --kunitconfig, but it also looks very verbose. E.g. it looks like $ tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --make_options=CC=/usr/bin/gcc-6 --kconfig_add=CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO=y --kconfig_add=CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_DWARF_TOOLCHAIN_DEFAULT=y --kconfig_add=CONFIG_GCOV=y Neither looks very appealing to me, so I've just kept it as-is for now. Maybe there's something we can do to make this easier (e.g. allowing --kunitconfig to be repeated and mergable)?
