From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F9C7C43381 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 20:02:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB03A217F5 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 20:02:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="N7DulkjE" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728142AbfBRUCa (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Feb 2019 15:02:30 -0500 Received: from mail-pl1-f195.google.com ([209.85.214.195]:38522 "EHLO mail-pl1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725308AbfBRUC3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Feb 2019 15:02:29 -0500 Received: by mail-pl1-f195.google.com with SMTP id e5so9236641plb.5; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 12:02:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=zFy0qC5hoVx2qztUjByA/pAinuKIgai5yAnGoAOF3dM=; b=N7DulkjEtxgvSTpLr8CHNtCDH2SU14RdRsf58Su1sItGpVMGKJJnIlKJskX80RlgSQ NdeQG2ogskQSrnGDSROZg5tYBUv1TCE/b0VkC+l/Up/RzPMNBWEjpw7S3hUy1Au9UrQm JOHv9m+68yNSyn+hVVYSZUvA9mPzi+zqEKUQ99OhwU7e4mlW5ur1b/h89ltWE7WYoqCS pVIFmCbLIawEJltsVL9P5rBsMtj5Yn3ThfL/H2t7trG8VQAUr33FztMN0/WTN6y1Lsle R4MNJ+8+4L2ddR+/dZsqexUEdIEZd8WNAdxqgSRxA8Ci2be7/y+CmFfho3iLLLQUhNSz Fg8w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=zFy0qC5hoVx2qztUjByA/pAinuKIgai5yAnGoAOF3dM=; b=l04lQ6htVxAssgUnRbQFgyNDfO4PisgixEPHtc0mEdVcJrALuK6SSFDv9c7abKNRZA iklj4QNBlUgUcIOSIqxPZNcKfvhZTRkkyaQbwfqfN96iG8GZ9R0N1emLZ82AFmNcgYrL xuo63ACVkASWef0iwXxaBtUnIQ+/UIwnbTSKZHFCxdu1OXZ5Bgw88gYdCWodsdIDQxO4 VE/lv9hn5IZinWemog3rKL3xaUlkVPRzxA1kvtslplZYC9s+PUjDPztZyJekvCOG8TmS ln4yUSR0F2c02IBUEr0lROEQA+WROBztwSDQPgy1cV9u0tvPlptIrRnuC6WG/JihpaDm HqKQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAua2UPgwvTLjKttq0YmyR47qr97t3VNU0UJkSU2vw7dTmczAfeA1 /YyoL9U9hnSvDZaorfsi6xw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IYUbAcYcTjGfdzYpdT1KGIwMkouhhnPyFehNsyCMlBO8kadBET8PmI2mnlQ5DMkRO2GL+MI7w== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:583:: with SMTP id f3mr27578143plf.202.1550520148334; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 12:02:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.70] (c-24-6-192-50.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [24.6.192.50]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n73sm20458162pfj.148.2019.02.18.12.02.25 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 18 Feb 2019 12:02:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [RFC v4 00/17] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework To: Brendan Higgins , keescook@google.com, mcgrof@kernel.org, shuah@kernel.org, robh@kernel.org, kieran.bingham@ideasonboard.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, joel@jms.id.au, mpe@ellerman.id.au, joe@perches.com, brakmo@fb.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, Tim.Bird@sony.com, khilman@baylibre.com, julia.lawall@lip6.fr, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jdike@addtoit.com, richard@nod.at, linux-um@lists.infradead.org, daniel@ffwll.ch, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, dan.j.williams@intel.com, linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, knut.omang@oracle.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, pmladek@suse.com, Alexander.Levin@microsoft.com, amir73il@gmail.com, dan.carpenter@oracle.com, wfg@linux.intel.com References: <20190214213729.21702-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> From: Frank Rowand Message-ID: Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 12:02:24 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190214213729.21702-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2/14/19 1:37 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote: > This patch set proposes KUnit, a lightweight unit testing and mocking > framework for the Linux kernel. > > Unlike Autotest and kselftest, KUnit is a true unit testing framework; > it does not require installing the kernel on a test machine or in a VM > and does not require tests to be written in userspace running on a host > kernel. Additionally, KUnit is fast: From invocation to completion KUnit > can run several dozen tests in under a second. Currently, the entire > KUnit test suite for KUnit runs in under a second from the initial > invocation (build time excluded). > > KUnit is heavily inspired by JUnit, Python's unittest.mock, and > Googletest/Googlemock for C++. KUnit provides facilities for defining > unit test cases, grouping related test cases into test suites, providing > common infrastructure for running tests, mocking, spying, and much more. > > ## What's so special about unit testing? > > A unit test is supposed to test a single unit of code in isolation, > hence the name. There should be no dependencies outside the control of > the test; this means no external dependencies, which makes tests orders > of magnitudes faster. Likewise, since there are no external dependencies, > there are no hoops to jump through to run the tests. Additionally, this > makes unit tests deterministic: a failing unit test always indicates a > problem. Finally, because unit tests necessarily have finer granularity, > they are able to test all code paths easily solving the classic problem > of difficulty in exercising error handling code. > > ## Is KUnit trying to replace other testing frameworks for the kernel? > > No. Most existing tests for the Linux kernel are end-to-end tests, which > have their place. A well tested system has lots of unit tests, a > reasonable number of integration tests, and some end-to-end tests. KUnit > is just trying to address the unit test space which is currently not > being addressed. > > ## More information on KUnit > > There is a bunch of documentation near the end of this patch set that > describes how to use KUnit and best practices for writing unit tests. > For convenience I am hosting the compiled docs here: > https://google.github.io/kunit-docs/third_party/kernel/docs/ > Additionally for convenience, I have applied these patches to a branch: > https://kunit.googlesource.com/linux/+/kunit/rfc/5.0-rc5/v4 > The repo may be cloned with: > git clone https://kunit.googlesource.com/linux > This patchset is on the kunit/rfc/5.0-rc5/v4 branch. > > ## Changes Since Last Version > > - Got KUnit working on (hypothetically) all architectures (tested on > x86), as per Rob's (and other's) request > - Punting all KUnit features/patches depending on UML for now. > - Broke out UML specific support into arch/um/* as per "[RFC v3 01/19] > kunit: test: add KUnit test runner core", as requested by Luis. > - Added support to kunit_tool to allow it to build kernels in external > directories, as suggested by Kieran. > - Added a UML defconfig, and a config fragment for KUnit as suggested > by Kieran and Luis. > - Cleaned up, and reformatted a bunch of stuff. > I have not read through the patches in any detail. I have read some of the code to try to understand the patches to the devicetree unit tests. So that may limit how valid my comments below are. I found the code difficult to read in places where it should have been much simpler to read. Structuring the code in a pseudo object oriented style meant that everywhere in a code path that I encountered a dynamic function call, I had to go find where that dynamic function call was initialized (and being the cautious person that I am, verify that no where else was the value of that dynamic function call). With primitive vi and tags, that search would have instead just been a simple key press (or at worst a few keys) if hard coded function calls were done instead of dynamic function calls. In the code paths that I looked at, I did not see any case of a dynamic function being anything other than the value it was originally initialized as. There may be such cases, I did not read the entire patch set. There may also be cases envisioned in the architects mind of how this flexibility may be of future value. Dunno. -Frank