On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 12:35 PM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 I don't think it's *that* much more verbose, but I see your point. I personally prefer this, but not enough to argue about it. > 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)? I would like --kunitconfig to be repeadable and mergable.
