Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] configfs: Add unit tests

[Christoph Hellwig]

> text and binary attribute support. This is how I run these tests:
> 
> set -e
> if [ -e .config ]; then
>     make ARCH=um mrproper
> fi
> if [ ! -e .kunit/.kunitconfig ]; then
>     cat <<EOF >.kunit/.kunitconfig
> CONFIG_CONFIGFS_FS=y
> CONFIG_CONFIGFS_KUNIT_TEST=y
> CONFIG_KUNIT=y
> CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y
> CONFIG_SYSFS=y
> CONFIG_UBSAN=y
> EOF
>     cp .kunit/.kunitconfig .kunit/.config
> fi
> ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run

This is very useful documentation, but shouldn't it go into a README.kunit
or similar instead of a commit message?

> +config CONFIGFS_KUNIT_TEST
> +	bool "Configfs Kunit test" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
> +	depends on CONFIGFS_FS && KUNIT=y
> +	default KUNIT_ALL_TESTS

Why does it depend on KUNIT=y?  What is the issue with a modular KUNIT
build?


> +static int mkdir(const char *name, umode_t mode)
> +{
> +	struct dentry *dentry;
> +	struct path path;
> +	int err;
> +
> +	err = get_file_mode(name);
> +	if (err >= 0 && S_ISDIR(err))
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	dentry = kern_path_create(AT_FDCWD, name, &path, LOOKUP_DIRECTORY);
> +	if (IS_ERR(dentry))
> +		return PTR_ERR(dentry);
> +
> +	err = vfs_mkdir(&init_user_ns, d_inode(path.dentry), dentry, mode);
> +	done_path_create(&path, dentry);

To me this sounds like userspace would be a better place for these
kinds of tests.