Hi Daniel,
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 06:39:25PM -0800, Daniel Latypov wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 10:41 AM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > These tests didn't work under the normal `kunit.py run` command since
> > they require CONFIG_PCI=y, which could not be set on ARCH=um.
> >
> > Commit 68f5d3f3b654 ("um: add PCI over virtio emulation driver") lets us
> > do so. To make it so people don't have to figure out how to do so, we
> > add a drivers/thunderbolt/.kunitconfig.
> >
> > Can now run these tests using
> > $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=drivers/thunderbolt
> >
> > Potentially controversial bits:
> > 1. this .kunitconfig is UML-specific, can't do this for example
> > $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --arch=x86_64 --kunitconfig=drivers/thunderbolt
> > 2. this removes the manual call to __kunit_test_suites_init(), which
> > allowed us to control exactly when the tests got run.
>
> kernel-test-robot points out something I had forgotten.
> Doing this prevents us from being able to build this test as a module.
>
> kunit_test_suites() defines an init_module() which conflicts with the
> existing ones.
>
> There's some relevant discussion about reworking how kunit modules
> work here, https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/e5fa413ed59083ca63f3479d507b972380da0dcf.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
>
> So I think we have two options for this patch:
> a) proceed, but disable building the test as a module for now (tristate => bool)
> b) wait on this patch until kunit module support is refactored
>
> Basically the question is: does this slightly easier way of running
> the test seem worth losing the ability to test as a module in the
> short-term?
I would like to keep the module option available.
For me, I can just continue running this under QEMU for now so let's
wait until the reworking has been done. Thanks for looking into this,
though! :)
