lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Apr]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3] Documentation: kunit: add tips for running KUnit
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 9:22 PM David Gow <davidgow@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 8:45 AM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > This is long overdue.
> >
> > There are several things that aren't nailed down (in-tree
> > .kunitconfig's), or partially broken (GCOV on UML), but having them
> > documented, warts and all, is better than having nothing.
> >
> > This covers a bunch of the more recent features
> > * kunit_filter_glob
> > * kunit.py run --kunitconfig
> > * slightly more detail on building tests as modules
> > * CONFIG_KUNIT_DEBUGFS
> >
> > By my count, the only headline features now not mentioned are the KASAN
> > integration and KernelCI json output support (kunit.py run --json).
> >
> > And then it also discusses how to get code coverage reports under UML
> > and non-UML since this is a question people have repeatedly asked.
> >
> > Non-UML coverage collection is no different from normal, but we should
> > probably explicitly call this out.
> >
> > As for UML, I was able to get it working again with two small hacks.*
> > E.g. with CONFIG_KUNIT=y && CONFIG_KUNIT_ALL_TESTS=y
> > Overall coverage rate:
> > lines......: 15.1% (18294 of 120776 lines)
> > functions..: 16.8% (1860 of 11050 functions)
> >
> > Note: this doesn't document --alltests since this is not stable yet.
> > Hopefully being run more frequently as part of KernelCI will help...
> >
> > *Using gcc/gcov-6 and not using uml_abort() in os_dump_core().
> > I've documented these hacks in "Notes" but left TODOs for
> > brendanhiggins@google.com who tracked down the runtime issue in GCC.
> > To be clear: these are not issues specific to KUnit, but rather to UML.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
> > ---
>
> I'm very happy with this now: all my issues with the previous versions
> are addressed. I'm particularly excited to have code coverage
> documented somewhere.

I just realized I forgot to commit the updated wording you requested
wrt uml_abort() in the patch itself.
Sending a v4 now.

>
> Assuming Brendan's happy with the TODOs being there, I think this is
> ready to go.
>
> I also built this with Sphinx and gave it a quick look, and it all
> looks good there as well.
>
> Therefore, this is:
>
> Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
>
> Cheers,
> -- David

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-04-15 00:23    [W:0.336 / U:0.608 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site