Hi Mauro,
On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 15:21:20 CEST Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Mon, 31 Jul 2023 16:10:24 +0200
> Janusz Krzysztofik <janusz.krzysztofik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
>
> > Results from kunit tests reported via dmesg may be interleaved with other
> > kernel messages. When parsing dmesg for modular kunit results in real
> > time, external tools, e.g., Intel GPU tools (IGT), may want to insert
> > their own test name markers into dmesg at the start of each test, before
> > any kernel message related to that test appears there, so existing upper
> > level test result parsers have no doubt which test to blame for a specific
> > kernel message. Unfortunately, kunit reports names of tests only at their
> > completion (with the exeption of a not standarized "# Subtest: <name>"
> > header above a test plan of each test suite or parametrized test).
> >
> > External tools could be able to insert their own "start of the test"
> > markers with test names included if they new those names in advance.
> > Test names could be learned from a list if provided by a kunit test
> > module.
> >
> > There exists a feature of listing kunit tests without actually executing
> > them, but it is now limited to configurations with the kunit module built
> > in and covers only built-in tests, already available at boot time.
> > Moreover, switching from list to normal mode requires reboot. If that
> > feature was also available when kunit is built as a module, userspace
> > could load the module with action=list parameter, load some kunit test
> > modules they are interested in and learn about the list of tests provided
> > by those modules, then unload them, reload the kunit module in normal mode
> > and execute the tests with their lists already known.
> >
> > Extend kunit module notifier initialization callback with a processing
> > path for only listing the tests provided by a module if the kunit action
> > parameter is set to "list". For ease of use, submit the list in the
> > format of a standard KTAP report, with SKIP result from each test case,
> > giving "list mode" as the reason for skipping. For each test suite
> > provided by a kunit test module, make such list of its test cases also
> > available via kunit debugfs for the lifetime of the module. For user
> > convenience, make the kunit.action parameter visible in sysfs.
>
> It sounds interesting to have a modprobe option to just list the
> tests without excecuting.
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Janusz Krzysztofik <janusz.krzysztofik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > include/kunit/test.h | 1 +
> > lib/kunit/executor.c | 19 +++++++++++++------
> > lib/kunit/test.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > 3 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h
> > index 23120d50499ef..6d693f21a4833 100644
> > --- a/include/kunit/test.h
> > +++ b/include/kunit/test.h
> > @@ -237,6 +237,7 @@ static inline void kunit_set_failure(struct kunit *test)
> > }
> >
> > bool kunit_enabled(void);
> > +const char *kunit_action(void);
> >
> > void kunit_init_test(struct kunit *test, const char *name, char *log);
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/kunit/executor.c b/lib/kunit/executor.c
> > index 74982b83707ca..d1c0616569dfd 100644
> > --- a/lib/kunit/executor.c
> > +++ b/lib/kunit/executor.c
> > @@ -12,19 +12,26 @@
> > extern struct kunit_suite * const __kunit_suites_start[];
> > extern struct kunit_suite * const __kunit_suites_end[];
> >
> > +static char *action_param;
> > +
> > +module_param_named(action, action_param, charp, 0400);
> > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(action,
> > + "Changes KUnit executor behavior, valid values are:\n"
> > + "<none>: run the tests like normal\n"
> > + "'list' to list test names instead of running them.\n");
>
> Help message sounded confusing. What about adding a boolean modprobe
> parameter, like "list_tests"?
While the above lines may look like a new code that introduced a new module
parameter at a first glance, please note that's a chunk of the existing code,
only moved out of #if IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_KUNIT) section below.
Having that clarified, do you mean adding a new module parameter that
effectively replicates the function of the existing built-in only action=list
parameter but is available also for modular kunit? Or do you mean replacing
the existing action=list parameter completely with the new one? If the latter
then that would mean a change to the existing ABI, and I'd rather not add it
to the scope of this change as not required.
Thanks,
Janusz
>
> > +
> > +const char *kunit_action(void)
> > +{
> > + return action_param;
> > +}
> > +
> > #if IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_KUNIT)
> >
> > static char *filter_glob_param;
> > -static char *action_param;
> >
> > module_param_named(filter_glob, filter_glob_param, charp, 0);
> > MODULE_PARM_DESC(filter_glob,
> > "Filter which KUnit test suites/tests run at boot-time, e.g. list* or list*.*del_test");
> > -module_param_named(action, action_param, charp, 0);
> > -MODULE_PARM_DESC(action,
> > - "Changes KUnit executor behavior, valid values are:\n"
> > - "<none>: run the tests like normal\n"
> > - "'list' to list test names instead of running them.\n");
> >
> > /* glob_match() needs NULL terminated strings, so we need a copy of filter_glob_param. */
> > struct kunit_test_filter {
> > diff --git a/lib/kunit/test.c b/lib/kunit/test.c
> > index a29ca1acc4d81..413d9fd364a8d 100644
> > --- a/lib/kunit/test.c
> > +++ b/lib/kunit/test.c
> > @@ -674,6 +674,27 @@ int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite)
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kunit_run_tests);
> >
> > +static void kunit_list_suite(struct kunit_suite *suite)
> > +{
> > + struct kunit_case *test_case;
> > +
> > + kunit_print_suite_start(suite);
> > +
> > + kunit_suite_for_each_test_case(suite, test_case) {
> > + struct kunit test = { .param_value = NULL, .param_index = 0 };
> > +
> > + kunit_init_test(&test, test_case->name, test_case->log);
> > +
> > + kunit_print_ok_not_ok(&test, true, KUNIT_SKIPPED,
> > + kunit_test_case_num(suite, test_case),
> > + test_case->name, "list mode");
> > + }
> > +
> > + kunit_print_ok_not_ok((void *)suite, false, KUNIT_SKIPPED,
> > + kunit_suite_counter++,
> > + suite->name, "list mode");
> > +}
> > +
> > static void kunit_init_suite(struct kunit_suite *suite)
> > {
> > kunit_debugfs_create_suite(suite);
> > @@ -688,6 +709,7 @@ bool kunit_enabled(void)
> >
> > int __kunit_test_suites_init(struct kunit_suite * const * const suites, int num_suites)
> > {
> > + const char *action = kunit_action();
> > unsigned int i;
> >
> > if (!kunit_enabled() && num_suites > 0) {
> > @@ -699,7 +721,13 @@ int __kunit_test_suites_init(struct kunit_suite * const * const suites, int num_
> >
> > for (i = 0; i < num_suites; i++) {
> > kunit_init_suite(suites[i]);
> > - kunit_run_tests(suites[i]);
> > +
> > + if (!action)
> > + kunit_run_tests(suites[i]);
> > + else if (!strcmp(action, "list"))
> > + kunit_list_suite(suites[i]);
> > + else
> > + pr_err("kunit: unknown action '%s'\n", action);
> > }
> >
> > static_branch_dec(&kunit_running);
>
> The remaining code LGTM.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Mauro
>
