On Tue, 2019-10-29 at 17:58 +0000, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 12:55:15PM -0700, Ralph Campbell wrote: > > Add self tests for HMM. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > MAINTAINERS | 3 + > > drivers/char/Kconfig | 11 + > > drivers/char/Makefile | 1 + > > drivers/char/hmm_dmirror.c | 1566 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > include/Kbuild | 1 + > > include/uapi/linux/hmm_dmirror.h | 74 ++ > > tools/testing/selftests/vm/.gitignore | 1 + > > tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile | 3 + > > tools/testing/selftests/vm/config | 3 + > > tools/testing/selftests/vm/hmm-tests.c | 1311 ++++++++++++++++++++ > > tools/testing/selftests/vm/run_vmtests | 16 + > > tools/testing/selftests/vm/test_hmm.sh | 97 ++ > > 12 files changed, 3087 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 drivers/char/hmm_dmirror.c > > create mode 100644 include/uapi/linux/hmm_dmirror.h > > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/vm/hmm-tests.c > > create mode 100755 tools/testing/selftests/vm/test_hmm.sh > > This is really big, it would be nice to get a comment from the various > kernel testing folks if this approach makes sense with the test > frameworks. Do we have other drivers that are only intended to be used > by selftests? > > Frankly, I'm not super excited about the idea of a 'test driver', it > seems more logical for testing to have some way for a test harness to > call hmm_range_fault() under various conditions and check the results? Not a big fan of those selftests either. Could it be saner to use the new KUnit framework for those instead?
