On 5/8/19 6:44 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 05:58:49PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> If KUnit is added to the kernel, and a subsystem that I am submitting
> code for has chosen to use KUnit instead of kselftest, then yes, I do
> *have* to use KUnit if my submission needs to contain a test for the
> code unless I want to convince the maintainer that somehow my case
> is special and I prefer to use kselftest instead of KUnittest.
That's going to be between you and the maintainer. Today, if you want
to submit a substantive change to xfs or ext4, you're going to be
asked to create test for that new feature using xfstests. It doesn't
matter that xfstests isn't in the kernel --- if that's what is
required by the maintainer.
Yes, that is exactly what I was saying.
Please do not cut the pertinent parts of context that I am replying to.
>> supposed to be a simple way to run a large number of small
>> for specific small components in a system.
> kselftest also supports running a subset of tests. That subset of tests
> can also be a large number of small tests. There is nothing inherent
> in KUnit vs kselftest in this regard, as far as I am aware.
The big difference is that kselftests are driven by a C program that
runs in userspace. Take a look at tools/testing/selftests/filesystem/dnotify_test.c
it has a main(int argc, char *argv) function.
In contrast, KUnit are fragments of C code which run in the kernel;
not in userspace. This allows us to test internal functions inside
complex file system (such as the block allocator in ext4) directly.
This makes it *fundamentally* different from kselftest.
No, totally incorrect. kselftests also supports in kernel modules as
I mention in another reply to this patch.
This is talking past each other a little bit, because your next reply
is a reply to my email about modules.