Re: [PATCH v2 00/17] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework
From: Frank Rowand
Date: Wed May 08 2019 - 22:19:43 EST
On 5/8/19 6:44 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 05:58:49PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> If KUnit is added to the kernel, and a subsystem that I am submitting
>> code for has chosen to use KUnit instead of kselftest, then yes, I do
>> *have* to use KUnit if my submission needs to contain a test for the
>> code unless I want to convince the maintainer that somehow my case
>> is special and I prefer to use kselftest instead of KUnittest.
> That's going to be between you and the maintainer. Today, if you want
> to submit a substantive change to xfs or ext4, you're going to be
> asked to create test for that new feature using xfstests. It doesn't
> matter that xfstests isn't in the kernel --- if that's what is
> required by the maintainer.
Yes, that is exactly what I was saying.
Please do not cut the pertinent parts of context that I am replying to.
>>> supposed to be a simple way to run a large number of small tests that
>>> for specific small components in a system.
>> kselftest also supports running a subset of tests. That subset of tests
>> can also be a large number of small tests. There is nothing inherent
>> in KUnit vs kselftest in this regard, as far as I am aware.
> The big difference is that kselftests are driven by a C program that
> runs in userspace. Take a look at tools/testing/selftests/filesystem/dnotify_test.c
> it has a main(int argc, char *argv) function.
> In contrast, KUnit are fragments of C code which run in the kernel;
> not in userspace. This allows us to test internal functions inside
> complex file system (such as the block allocator in ext4) directly.
> This makes it *fundamentally* different from kselftest.
No, totally incorrect. kselftests also supports in kernel modules as
I mention in another reply to this patch.
This is talking past each other a little bit, because your next reply
is a reply to my email about modules.
> - Ted