On 7/30/24 11:17 AM, Shuah Khan wrote:
On 7/30/24 09:55, Shuah Khan wrote:
On 7/30/24 04:10, David Gow wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 at 22:09, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
...
I can see the point that renaming the config option is just churn, but
is there a reason people would run the bitmap selftest but be unable
or unwilling to use KUnit?
Beyond a brief period of adjustment (which could probably be made
quite minimal with a wrapper script or something), there shouldn't
really be any fundamental difference: KUnit tests can already run at
boot, be configured with a config option, and write output to the
kernel log. There's nothing really being taken away here, and the
bonus of having easier access to run the tests with KUnit's tooling
(or have them automatically run by systems which run KUnit tests)
would seem worthwhile to me, especially since it's optional. And
CONFIG_KUNIT shouldn't be heavy enough to cause problems.
Shouldn't be is the operative word? This doesn't help people who
want run a run bitmap test on a running system. This is a wrong
direction to go to say all testing has to be done under kunit.
What happened to the effort to run selftests as is under KUnit? What
is the motivation to convert all tests to kunit instead of trying to
provide support to run kselftest under kunit environment?
We discussed this a few years ago as I recall. Let's work on that
instead of removing existing selftests and regressing current use-cases?
Can we look into providing:
1. running kselftest under kunit environment without changes
as user space applications?
Yes. I suggested this earlier: if something fits neatly into
a KUnit test, then with some additional work, it can also be
run from kselftest. Just supporting both would be very nice,
because people don't have to change anything about their testing
flow.
2. Leave kselftests alone so we don't weaken kernel testing
Or augment them as above, so that we don't weaken kernel testing,
yes.
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
