| Message ID | 20210222225241.201145-1-dlatypov@google.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | 9854781dba371dda22880fc6acac7688fb5e2bae |
| Headers | show |
| Series | kunit: tool: make --kunitconfig accept dirs, add lib/kunit fragment | expand |
On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 6:52 AM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> wrote: > > TL;DR > $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=lib/kunit > > Per suggestion from Ted [1], we can reduce the amount of typing by > assuming a convention that these files are named '.kunitconfig'. > > In the case of [1], we now have > $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=fs/ext4 > > Also add in such a fragment for kunit itself so we can give that as an > example more close to home (and thus less likely to be accidentally > broken). > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/YCNF4yP1dB97zzwD@mit.edu/ > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> > --- Thanks! I really like this. I'd assumed we'd check if the path exists, and fall back to appending ".kunitconfig", but checking if it's a directory is better. I tried this out with all the different combinations I could think of, and it works well. Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com> Cheers, -- David > lib/kunit/.kunitconfig | 3 +++ > tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py | 4 +++- > tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py | 2 ++ > tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py | 6 ++++++ > 4 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > create mode 100644 lib/kunit/.kunitconfig > > diff --git a/lib/kunit/.kunitconfig b/lib/kunit/.kunitconfig > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..9235b7d42d38 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/lib/kunit/.kunitconfig > @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ > +CONFIG_KUNIT=y > +CONFIG_KUNIT_TEST=y > +CONFIG_KUNIT_EXAMPLE_TEST=y > diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py > index d5144fcb03ac..5da8fb3762f9 100755 > --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py > +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py > @@ -184,7 +184,9 @@ def add_common_opts(parser) -> None: > help='Run all KUnit tests through allyesconfig', > action='store_true') > parser.add_argument('--kunitconfig', > - help='Path to Kconfig fragment that enables KUnit tests', > + help='Path to Kconfig fragment that enables KUnit tests.' > + ' If given a directory, (e.g. lib/kunit), "/.kunitconfig" ' > + 'will get automatically appended.', > metavar='kunitconfig') > > def add_build_opts(parser) -> None: > diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py > index f309a33256cd..89a7d4024e87 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py > +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py > @@ -132,6 +132,8 @@ class LinuxSourceTree(object): > return > > if kunitconfig_path: > + if os.path.isdir(kunitconfig_path): > + kunitconfig_path = os.path.join(kunitconfig_path, KUNITCONFIG_PATH) > if not os.path.exists(kunitconfig_path): > raise ConfigError(f'Specified kunitconfig ({kunitconfig_path}) does not exist') > else: > diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py > index 1ad3049e9069..2e809dd956a7 100755 > --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py > +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py > @@ -251,6 +251,12 @@ class LinuxSourceTreeTest(unittest.TestCase): > with tempfile.NamedTemporaryFile('wt') as kunitconfig: > tree = kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree('', kunitconfig_path=kunitconfig.name) > > + def test_dir_kunitconfig(self): > + with tempfile.TemporaryDirectory('') as dir: > + with open(os.path.join(dir, '.kunitconfig'), 'w') as f: > + pass > + tree = kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree('', kunitconfig_path=dir) > + > # TODO: add more test cases. > > > > base-commit: b12b47249688915e987a9a2a393b522f86f6b7ab > -- > 2.30.0.617.g56c4b15f3c-goog >
> TL;DR > $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=lib/kunit > > Per suggestion from Ted [1], we can reduce the amount of typing by > assuming a convention that these files are named '.kunitconfig'. > > In the case of [1], we now have > $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=fs/ext4 > > Also add in such a fragment for kunit itself so we can give that as an > example more close to home (and thus less likely to be accidentally > broken). > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/YCNF4yP1dB97zzwD@mit.edu/ > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
On 4/2/21 3:32 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote: >> TL;DR >> $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=lib/kunit >> >> Per suggestion from Ted [1], we can reduce the amount of typing by >> assuming a convention that these files are named '.kunitconfig'. >> >> In the case of [1], we now have >> $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=fs/ext4 >> >> Also add in such a fragment for kunit itself so we can give that as an >> example more close to home (and thus less likely to be accidentally >> broken). >> >> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/YCNF4yP1dB97zzwD@mit.edu/ >> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> > > Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com> > Should this be captured in documentation. Especially since this is file is .* file. Do you want to include doc in this patch? Might be better that way. thanks, -- Shuah
On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 11:00 AM Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On 4/2/21 3:32 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote: > >> TL;DR > >> $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=lib/kunit > >> > >> Per suggestion from Ted [1], we can reduce the amount of typing by > >> assuming a convention that these files are named '.kunitconfig'. > >> > >> In the case of [1], we now have > >> $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=fs/ext4 > >> > >> Also add in such a fragment for kunit itself so we can give that as an > >> example more close to home (and thus less likely to be accidentally > >> broken). > >> > >> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/YCNF4yP1dB97zzwD@mit.edu/ > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> > > > > Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com> > > > > Should this be captured in documentation. Especially since this > is file is .* file. > > Do you want to include doc in this patch? Might be better that way. It definitely should be documented, yes. The only real example hadn't landed yet when I sent this patch (fs/ext4/.kunitconfig was going in through the ext4 tree), but now it's in linus/master. There's still some uncertainties about what best practices for this feature should be, i.e. * how granular should these be? * how should configs in parent dirs be handled? Should they be supersets of all the subdirs? * E.g. should fs/.kunitconfig be a superset of fs/ext4/.kunitconfig and any other hypothetical subdir configs? * Should we wait on saying "you should do this" until we have "import" statements/other mechanisms to make this less manual? * how should we handle non-UML tests, like the KASAN tests? * ideally, kunit.py run will eventually support running tests on x86 (using qemu) If it's fine with you, I was hoping to come back and add a section to kunit/start.rst when we've had some of those questions more figured out. > > thanks, > -- Shuah
On 4/2/21 1:27 PM, Daniel Latypov wrote: > On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 11:00 AM Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >> On 4/2/21 3:32 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote: >>>> TL;DR >>>> $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=lib/kunit >>>> >>>> Per suggestion from Ted [1], we can reduce the amount of typing by >>>> assuming a convention that these files are named '.kunitconfig'. >>>> >>>> In the case of [1], we now have >>>> $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=fs/ext4 >>>> >>>> Also add in such a fragment for kunit itself so we can give that as an >>>> example more close to home (and thus less likely to be accidentally >>>> broken). >>>> >>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/YCNF4yP1dB97zzwD@mit.edu/ >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com> >>> >> >> Should this be captured in documentation. Especially since this >> is file is .* file. >> >> Do you want to include doc in this patch? Might be better that way. > > It definitely should be documented, yes. > The only real example hadn't landed yet when I sent this patch > (fs/ext4/.kunitconfig was going in through the ext4 tree), but now > it's in linus/master. > > There's still some uncertainties about what best practices for this > feature should be, i.e. > * how granular should these be? > * how should configs in parent dirs be handled? Should they be > supersets of all the subdirs? > * E.g. should fs/.kunitconfig be a superset of > fs/ext4/.kunitconfig and any other hypothetical subdir configs? > * Should we wait on saying "you should do this" until we have > "import" statements/other mechanisms to make this less manual? > * how should we handle non-UML tests, like the KASAN tests? > * ideally, kunit.py run will eventually support running tests on x86 > (using qemu) > > If it's fine with you, I was hoping to come back and add a section to > kunit/start.rst when we've had some of those questions more figured > out. > Sound good. I will apply this patch and you can document later. thanks, -- Shuah
diff --git a/lib/kunit/.kunitconfig b/lib/kunit/.kunitconfig new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..9235b7d42d38 --- /dev/null +++ b/lib/kunit/.kunitconfig @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +CONFIG_KUNIT=y +CONFIG_KUNIT_TEST=y +CONFIG_KUNIT_EXAMPLE_TEST=y diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py index d5144fcb03ac..5da8fb3762f9 100755 --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py @@ -184,7 +184,9 @@ def add_common_opts(parser) -> None: help='Run all KUnit tests through allyesconfig', action='store_true') parser.add_argument('--kunitconfig', - help='Path to Kconfig fragment that enables KUnit tests', + help='Path to Kconfig fragment that enables KUnit tests.' + ' If given a directory, (e.g. lib/kunit), "/.kunitconfig" ' + 'will get automatically appended.', metavar='kunitconfig') def add_build_opts(parser) -> None: diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py index f309a33256cd..89a7d4024e87 100644 --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py @@ -132,6 +132,8 @@ class LinuxSourceTree(object): return if kunitconfig_path: + if os.path.isdir(kunitconfig_path): + kunitconfig_path = os.path.join(kunitconfig_path, KUNITCONFIG_PATH) if not os.path.exists(kunitconfig_path): raise ConfigError(f'Specified kunitconfig ({kunitconfig_path}) does not exist') else: diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py index 1ad3049e9069..2e809dd956a7 100755 --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py @@ -251,6 +251,12 @@ class LinuxSourceTreeTest(unittest.TestCase): with tempfile.NamedTemporaryFile('wt') as kunitconfig: tree = kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree('', kunitconfig_path=kunitconfig.name) + def test_dir_kunitconfig(self): + with tempfile.TemporaryDirectory('') as dir: + with open(os.path.join(dir, '.kunitconfig'), 'w') as f: + pass + tree = kunit_kernel.LinuxSourceTree('', kunitconfig_path=dir) + # TODO: add more test cases.
TL;DR $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=lib/kunit Per suggestion from Ted [1], we can reduce the amount of typing by assuming a convention that these files are named '.kunitconfig'. In the case of [1], we now have $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=fs/ext4 Also add in such a fragment for kunit itself so we can give that as an example more close to home (and thus less likely to be accidentally broken). [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/YCNF4yP1dB97zzwD@mit.edu/ Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> --- lib/kunit/.kunitconfig | 3 +++ tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py | 4 +++- tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py | 2 ++ tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py | 6 ++++++ 4 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 lib/kunit/.kunitconfig base-commit: b12b47249688915e987a9a2a393b522f86f6b7ab