Re: [PATCH] Documentation: kunit: update kconfig options needed for UML coverage

[Brendan Higgins]

On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 12:35 PM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 9:56 PM David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> > >         # Append coverage options to the current config
> > > -       $ echo -e "CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL=y\nCONFIG_DEBUG_INFO=y\nCONFIG_GCOV=y" >> .kunit/.kunitconfig
> > > +       $ echo -e "CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL=y\nCONFIG_DEBUG_INFO=y\nCONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_DWARF_TOOLCHAIN_DEFAULT=y\nCONFIG_GCOV=y" >> .kunit/.kunitconfig
> > >         $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run
> >
> > Would we want to instead use a chain of --kconfig_add arguments? (I
> > think there are advantages either way...)
>
> I've been considering this ever since the --kconfig_add patch was accepted.
> It's more compatible w/ commands using --kunitconfig, but it also
> looks very verbose.
> E.g. it looks like
>
> $ tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --make_options=CC=/usr/bin/gcc-6
> --kconfig_add=CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO=y
> --kconfig_add=CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_DWARF_TOOLCHAIN_DEFAULT=y
> --kconfig_add=CONFIG_GCOV=y

I don't think it's *that* much more verbose, but I see your point. I
personally prefer this, but not enough to argue about it.

> Neither looks very appealing to me, so I've just kept it as-is for now.
>
> Maybe there's something we can do to make this easier (e.g. allowing
> --kunitconfig to be repeated and mergable)?

I would like --kunitconfig to be repeadable and mergable.