From: David Gow <david@davidgow.net>
To: "Nicolás Antinori" <nico.antinori.7@gmail.com>,
"Alice Ryhl" <aliceryhl@google.com>,
"Benno Lossin" <lossin@kernel.org>,
"Boqun Feng" <boqun@kernel.org>,
"Brendan Higgins" <brendan.higgins@linux.dev>,
"Daniel Almeida" <daniel.almeida@collabora.com>,
"Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@kernel.org>,
"Gary Guo" <gary@garyguo.net>, "Miguel Ojeda" <ojeda@kernel.org>,
"Onur Özkan" <work@onurozkan.dev>
Cc: "Alexandre Courbot" <acourbot@nvidia.com>,
"Andreas Hindborg" <a.hindborg@kernel.org>,
"Björn Roy Baron" <bjorn3_gh@protonmail.com>,
"Burak Emir" <burak.emir@gmail.com>,
"Rae Moar" <raemoar63@gmail.com>,
"Tamir Duberstein" <tamird@kernel.org>,
"Trevor Gross" <tmgross@umich.edu>,
"Yury Norov" <yury.norov@gmail.com>,
kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] rust: kunit: support #[should_panic] and same test name with different #[cfg(...)]
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2026 13:31:49 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c5f8bee6-0380-4a61-9c4e-b9a01be84a13@davidgow.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DMNBNKKPHI0H.EZQ7YA2CSMEA@gmail.com>
Le 05/11/2026 à 9:46 PM, Nicolás Antinori a écrit :
> On Tue Nov 3, 2026 at 11:45 AM -03, David Gow wrote:
>> Thanks very much, Nicolás.
>>
>> I've had a closer look at the new version of this, and have a few
>> comments. Ultimately, I think a mix of this version and the original RFC
>> is probably best, and in particular, using a panic_handler instead of
>> modifying kunit_try_catch, and removing the special-case assert!()
>> handling would be ideal.
>>
>> Le 30/10/2026 à 00:59, Nicolás Antinori via B4 Relay a écrit :
>>> This patch series intends to implement two features for KUnit tests
>>> written in Rust. The work is based on a TODO comment made in the
>>> `bitmap.rs` module [1].
>>>
>>> Changelog:
>>>
>>> v2:
>>> - Added more tests in `rust/kernel/kunit.rs` testing Sashiko findings
>>> and changes.
>>> - Solved Sashiko: "[Low] kunit: spurious "try faulted" error logs for
>>> successful #[should_panic] tests": Solved by adding
>>> `rust_should_panic` in `kunit_try_catch` C struct to check if the test
>>> is expected to panic and act accordingly. Dismissed what I first talked
>>> about in [3].
>>
>> I think if we only handle Rust panics, this should go away, right?
>
> Yes, it should. Since we won't `BUG()` anymore in case a test should
> panic, the test thread won't exit with `-EINTR`. Because of this we
> won't need to shield the feature behind a Kconfig symbol either, since
> we won't have error logs in successful tests.
>
> Here's the raw output from the panic handler version:
>
> KTAP version 1
> 1..1
> KTAP version 1
> # Subtest: rust_kernel_kunit
> # speed: normal
> 1..1
> # rust_test_kunit_panic_in_kunit_test.speed: normal
> ok 1 rust_test_kunit_panic_in_kunit_test
> ok 1 rust_kernel_kunit
>
> for test:
>
> #[test]
> #[should_panic]
> fn rust_test_kunit_panic_in_kunit_test() {
> panic!("This test should panic and pass");
> }
>
Looks great!
>>> - Now the tests that have an inactive #[cfg(..)] do not appear un the
>>> KUnit execution summary as ignored, they just do not run.
>>> Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260930-rust_kunit_v4-v1-0-e3b0d45311dd@gmail.com/
>>>
>>> - RFC patch: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/cover.1789500084.git.nico.antinori.7@gmail.com/
>>>
>>> 1. Supporting `#[should_panic]` [2]:
>>>
>>> KUnit tests in Rust follow the user-space syntax, but at the moment
>>> `#[should_panic]` is not supported. The first patch of this series adds
>>> support for the attribute (only in its basic form, `#[should_panic =
>>> "message"]` is not supported yet).
>>>
>>> The way it is supported is by adding a new boolean property called
>>> `rust_should_panic` to `kunit_attributes` struct in kunit/test.h and in
>>> `kunit_attributes` in kunit/try-catch.h and check for the
>>> `try_catch->try_result` code and the named flag to detect if there was a
>>> panic in `kunit_try_catch_run` function.
>>
>> I think rust_should_panic as an attribute is good, but it should just be
>> checked from a panic_handler. If it supports more than just rust panics,
>> it probably shouldn't be called *rust_*should_panic (and again, should
>> probably be based on the warning suppression instead).
>
> If we consider failed `assert!` from outside a #[test] function panics,
> then I'll leave it like this, otherwise I am thinking of
> `rust_should_fail`.
I had a closer look at this: the assert!() macro (and equivalents, like
assert_eq!(), etc.) are defined to call panic!():
https://rust.docs.kernel.org/core/macro.assert.html
So I'd definitely keep the rust_should_panic name. (You could make an
argument for `should_rust_panic` instead, but I don't particularly like it.)
I don't think `rust_should_fail` would be a good name: the whole reason
this affects assertions is that they become panics, and we're
implementating rust's "should_panic", so should keep that nomenclature
so long as we're aiming for compatibility with that.
Cheers,
-- David
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-11-06 5:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-29 16:59 Nicolás Antinori via B4 Relay
2026-10-29 16:59 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] rust: kunit: add #[should_panic] support Nicolás Antinori via B4 Relay
2026-11-02 14:58 ` Nicolás Antinori
2026-11-02 15:51 ` Miguel Ojeda
2026-11-02 20:53 ` Nicolás Antinori
2026-11-02 21:25 ` Miguel Ojeda
2026-11-03 15:05 ` David Gow
2026-11-03 15:00 ` David Gow
2026-11-03 14:46 ` David Gow
2026-11-03 16:32 ` Miguel Ojeda
2026-11-06 5:31 ` David Gow
2026-11-04 17:58 ` Nicolás Antinori
2026-11-06 5:31 ` David Gow
2026-10-29 16:59 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] rust: kunit: allow same test name with different #[cfg(...)] Nicolás Antinori via B4 Relay
2026-11-03 14:45 ` David Gow
2026-10-29 16:59 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] rust: bitmap: kunit: uncomment owned_bitmap_out_of_bounds panic case Nicolás Antinori via B4 Relay
2026-11-03 14:46 ` David Gow
2026-11-03 14:45 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] rust: kunit: support #[should_panic] and same test name with different #[cfg(...)] David Gow
2026-11-05 13:46 ` Nicolás Antinori
2026-11-06 5:31 ` David Gow [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=c5f8bee6-0380-4a61-9c4e-b9a01be84a13@davidgow.net \
--to=david@davidgow.net \
--cc=a.hindborg@kernel.org \
--cc=acourbot@nvidia.com \
--cc=aliceryhl@google.com \
--cc=bjorn3_gh@protonmail.com \
--cc=boqun@kernel.org \
--cc=brendan.higgins@linux.dev \
--cc=burak.emir@gmail.com \
--cc=dakr@kernel.org \
--cc=daniel.almeida@collabora.com \
--cc=gary@garyguo.net \
--cc=kunit-dev@googlegroups.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lossin@kernel.org \
--cc=nico.antinori.7@gmail.com \
--cc=ojeda@kernel.org \
--cc=raemoar63@gmail.com \
--cc=rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tamird@kernel.org \
--cc=tmgross@umich.edu \
--cc=work@onurozkan.dev \
--cc=yury.norov@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®