Re: [RFC v4 15/17] of: unittest: migrate tests to run on KUnit

[Brendan Higgins]

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 4:24 PM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2/14/19 1:37 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > Migrate tests without any cleanup, or modifying test logic in anyway to
> > run under KUnit using the KUnit expectation and assertion API.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/of/Kconfig    |    1 +
> >  drivers/of/unittest.c | 1310 +++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
> >  2 files changed, 671 insertions(+), 640 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/of/Kconfig b/drivers/of/Kconfig
> > index ad3fcad4d75b8..f309399deac20 100644
> > --- a/drivers/of/Kconfig
> > +++ b/drivers/of/Kconfig
> > @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ if OF
> >  config OF_UNITTEST
> >       bool "Device Tree runtime unit tests"
> >       depends on !SPARC
> > +     depends on KUNIT
> >       select IRQ_DOMAIN
> >       select OF_EARLY_FLATTREE
> >       select OF_RESOLVE
> > diff --git a/drivers/of/unittest.c b/drivers/of/unittest.c
>
> These comments are from applying the patches to 5.0-rc3.
>
> The final hunk of this patch fails to apply because it depends upon
>
>    [PATCH v1 0/1] of: unittest: unflatten device tree on UML when testing.
>

Whoops, I probably should have made a note of that in the commit
description or cover letter, sorry.

> If I apply that patch then I can apply patches 15 through 17.
>
> If I apply patches 1 through 14 and boot the uml kernel then the devicetree
> unittest result is:
>
>   ### dt-test ### FAIL of_unittest_overlay_high_level():2372 overlay_base_root not initialized
>   ### dt-test ### end of unittest - 219 passed, 1 failed
>
> This is as expected from your previous reports, and is fixed after
> applying
>
>    [PATCH v1 0/1] of: unittest: unflatten device tree on UML when testing.
>
> with the devicetree unittest result of:
>
>    ### dt-test ### end of unittest - 224 passed, 0 failed
>
> After adding patch 15, there are a lot of "unittest internal error" messages.

Yeah, I meant to ask you about that. I thought it was due to a change
you made, but after further examination, just now, I found it was my
fault. Sorry for not mentioning that anywhere. I will fix it in v5.

Thanks!