On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 1:41 PM André Almeida <andre...@riseup.net
> We belong to two student groups, FLUSP  and LKCAMP , both of which
> are focused on sharing kernel and free software development knowledge
> and experience with fellow free software developers and newcomers.
> As part of our efforts, we'll be organizing a KUnit hackathon in the
> next Saturday (July 10), where we intend to help newcomers convert
> existing runtime tests (the ones found at lib/) to KUnit and maybe
> create new ones. Depending on the number of attendees, a high volume of
> patches may be sent throughout the day. We will do our best to review
> all patches before they go to the kernel mailing lists hoping to avoid
> wasting your time with minor patching issues.
That sounds great!
> So we wanted to let you know of all this beforehand and give you the
> time to send any suggestions or comments on all this. For instance, we
Some random, unorganized thoughts:
* I (as a kernel newbie) found the ownership of tests under lib/ to be
a bit unclear.
* Make sure to base on 5.14, there's some new features that could be of use
* QEMU support in kunit.py: it's no longer as big of a deal if we
can't get tests running under UML. Brendan's made it fairly easy to
run tests in an x86 VM.
* Skipped tests support: can now mark a test skipped. Some of the
lib/ tests could benefit, e.g. test_hash.c
* another lib/ test conversion just landed in 5.14, , along with
* Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/running_tips.rst - has instructions
for how to generate code coverage reports using UML/kunit.py
* This seems like it could be useful... 
* I feel that the hackathon will surface a number of feature requests
for KUnit. Some patches might be blocked on these features (like your
* Might be good to track these as they come up and note which
patches are blocked.
* Should we make a decision beforehand wrt renaming test files and
kconfig options to match the style guide? In the most recent
conversion , I left them as-is. The answer depends on the test
owner, but we should probably be consistent with what we do in the
v1's at least.
* I assume test modules used in selftests (test_bitmap, test_printf,
etc.) should remain untouched for now ?
* KUnit does *not* return a non-zero exit code when you modprobe the
test, as the userspace part of those tests assumes.
* We could write a wrapper like kselftest/module.sh, but for KUnit
test modules, but this extra in-flight patch would become a dependency
for maybe multiple other conversions.
* I'd like it if we had ^ eventually, but I don't know how others
feel about that.
* I had some small patches for converting test_min_heap.c and
test_sort.c that I should get around to sending out.
 I currently see
Overall coverage rate:
lines......: 16.4% (20034 of 122481 lines)
functions..: 18.1% (2032 of 11205 functions)
with the following kunitconfig
This might be a neat way to motivate participants by showing #s going up.
Note: I'm more interested in the # of covered functions than anything else.
The %s are nice to look at, but not that useful since we're only
compiling a small fraction of kernel code.
> may ask people to add a special tag to their patches so you may batch
> review them all at a later time if you wish.
> Anyhow, we'd really appreciate having your opinion on this.
>  - https://flusp.ime.usp.br/
>  - https://lkcamp.dev/
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "KUnit Development" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kunit-dev+...@googlegroups.com
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kunit-dev/83ff3ed3-e004-29b2-b23c-a2ba4d5a3f7f%40riseup.net