AcoSail/kernel_optimize_test
8
0
Fork 0
forked from luck/tmp_suning_uos_patched
Code Pull Requests Activity

Documentation: kunit: add documentation for KUnit

Browse Source 
Add documentation for KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework.
- Add intro and usage guide for KUnit
- Add API reference

Signed-off-by: Felix Guo <felixguoxiuping@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Reviewed-by: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>
Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
This commit is contained in:
Brendan Higgins 2019-09-23 02:02:45 -07:00 committed by Shuah Khan
parent ff7b437f36
commit c23a283b53
7 changed files with 925 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

1
Documentation/dev-tools/index.rst
View File

@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ whole; patches welcome!
gdb-kernel-debugging
kgdb
kselftest
kunit/index
.. only:: subproject and html

16
Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/index.rst Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
=============
API Reference
=============
.. toctree::
test
This section documents the KUnit kernel testing API. It is divided into the
following sections:
================================= ==============================================
:doc:`test` documents all of the standard testing API
excluding mocking or mocking related features.
================================= ==============================================

11
Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/test.rst Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
========
Test API
========
This file documents all of the standard testing API excluding mocking or mocking
related features.
.. kernel-doc:: include/kunit/test.h
:internal:

62
Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/faq.rst Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
==========================
Frequently Asked Questions
==========================
How is this different from Autotest, kselftest, etc?
====================================================
KUnit is a unit testing framework. Autotest, kselftest (and some others) are
not.
A `unit test <https://martinfowler.com/bliki/UnitTest.html>`_ is supposed to
test a single unit of code in isolation, hence the name. A unit test should be
the finest granularity of testing and as such should allow all possible code
paths to be tested in the code under test; this is only possible if the code
under test is very small and does not have any external dependencies outside of
the test's control like hardware.
There are no testing frameworks currently available for the kernel that do not
require installing the kernel on a test machine or in a VM and all require
tests to be written in userspace and run on the kernel under test; this is true
for Autotest, kselftest, and some others, disqualifying any of them from being
considered unit testing frameworks.
Does KUnit support running on architectures other than UML?
===========================================================
Yes, well, mostly.
For the most part, the KUnit core framework (what you use to write the tests)
can compile to any architecture; it compiles like just another part of the
kernel and runs when the kernel boots. However, there is some infrastructure,
like the KUnit Wrapper (``tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py``) that does not support
other architectures.
In short, this means that, yes, you can run KUnit on other architectures, but
it might require more work than using KUnit on UML.
For more information, see :ref:`kunit-on-non-uml`.
What is the difference between a unit test and these other kinds of tests?
==========================================================================
Most existing tests for the Linux kernel would be categorized as an integration
test, or an end-to-end test.
- A unit test is supposed to test a single unit of code in isolation, hence the
name. A unit test should be the finest granularity of testing and as such
should allow all possible code paths to be tested in the code under test; this
is only possible if the code under test is very small and does not have any
external dependencies outside of the test's control like hardware.
- An integration test tests the interaction between a minimal set of components,
usually just two or three. For example, someone might write an integration
test to test the interaction between a driver and a piece of hardware, or to
test the interaction between the userspace libraries the kernel provides and
the kernel itself; however, one of these tests would probably not test the
entire kernel along with hardware interactions and interactions with the
userspace.
- An end-to-end test usually tests the entire system from the perspective of the
code under test. For example, someone might write an end-to-end test for the
kernel by installing a production configuration of the kernel on production
hardware with a production userspace and then trying to exercise some behavior
that depends on interactions between the hardware, the kernel, and userspace.

79
Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/index.rst Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
=========================================
KUnit - Unit Testing for the Linux Kernel
=========================================
.. toctree::
:maxdepth: 2
start
usage
api/index
faq
What is KUnit?
==============
KUnit is a lightweight unit testing and mocking framework for the Linux kernel.
These tests are able to be run locally on a developer's workstation without a VM
or special hardware.
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, and much more.
Get started now: :doc:`start`
Why KUnit?
==========
A unit test is supposed to test a single unit of code in isolation, hence the
name. A unit test should be the finest granularity of testing and as such should
allow all possible code paths to be tested in the code under test; this is only
possible if the code under test is very small and does not have any external
dependencies outside of the test's control like hardware.
Outside of KUnit, there are no testing frameworks currently
available for the kernel that do not require installing the kernel on a test
machine or in a VM and all require tests to be written in userspace running on
the kernel; this is true for Autotest, and kselftest, disqualifying
any of them from being considered unit testing frameworks.
KUnit addresses the problem of being able to run tests without needing a virtual
machine or actual hardware with User Mode Linux. User Mode Linux is a Linux
architecture, like ARM or x86; however, unlike other architectures it compiles
to a standalone program that can be run like any other program directly inside
of a host operating system; to be clear, it does not require any virtualization
support; it is just a regular program.
KUnit is fast. Excluding build time, from invocation to completion KUnit can run
several dozen tests in only 10 to 20 seconds; this might not sound like a big
deal to some people, but having such fast and easy to run tests fundamentally
changes the way you go about testing and even writing code in the first place.
Linus himself said in his `git talk at Google
<https://gist.github.com/lorn/1272686/revisions#diff-53c65572127855f1b003db4064a94573R874>`_:
"... a lot of people seem to think that performance is about doing the
same thing, just doing it faster, and that is not true. That is not what
performance is all about. If you can do something really fast, really
well, people will start using it differently."
In this context Linus was talking about branching and merging,
but this point also applies to testing. If your tests are slow, unreliable, are
difficult to write, and require a special setup or special hardware to run,
then you wait a lot longer to write tests, and you wait a lot longer to run
tests; this means that tests are likely to break, unlikely to test a lot of
things, and are unlikely to be rerun once they pass. If your tests are really
fast, you run them all the time, every time you make a change, and every time
someone sends you some code. Why trust that someone ran all their tests
correctly on every change when you can just run them yourself in less time than
it takes to read their test log?
How do I use it?
================
* :doc:`start` - for new users of KUnit
* :doc:`usage` - for a more detailed explanation of KUnit features
* :doc:`api/index` - for the list of KUnit APIs used for testing

180
Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/start.rst Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,180 @@
.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
===============
Getting Started
===============
Installing dependencies
=======================
KUnit has the same dependencies as the Linux kernel. As long as you can build
the kernel, you can run KUnit.
KUnit Wrapper
=============
Included with KUnit is a simple Python wrapper that helps format the output to
easily use and read KUnit output. It handles building and running the kernel, as
well as formatting the output.
The wrapper can be run with:
.. code-block:: bash
./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run
Creating a kunitconfig
======================
The Python script is a thin wrapper around Kbuild as such, it needs to be
configured with a ``kunitconfig`` file. This file essentially contains the
regular Kernel config, with the specific test targets as well.
.. code-block:: bash
git clone -b master https://kunit.googlesource.com/kunitconfig $PATH_TO_KUNITCONFIG_REPO
cd $PATH_TO_LINUX_REPO
ln -s $PATH_TO_KUNIT_CONFIG_REPO/kunitconfig kunitconfig
You may want to add kunitconfig to your local gitignore.
Verifying KUnit Works
---------------------
To make sure that everything is set up correctly, simply invoke the Python
wrapper from your kernel repo:
.. code-block:: bash
./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py
.. note::
You may want to run ``make mrproper`` first.
If everything worked correctly, you should see the following:
.. code-block:: bash
Generating .config ...
Building KUnit Kernel ...
Starting KUnit Kernel ...
followed by a list of tests that are run. All of them should be passing.
.. note::
Because it is building a lot of sources for the first time, the ``Building
kunit kernel`` step may take a while.
Writing your first test
=======================
In your kernel repo let's add some code that we can test. Create a file
``drivers/misc/example.h`` with the contents:
.. code-block:: c
int misc_example_add(int left, int right);
create a file ``drivers/misc/example.c``:
.. code-block:: c
#include <linux/errno.h>
#include "example.h"
int misc_example_add(int left, int right)
{
return left + right;
}
Now add the following lines to ``drivers/misc/Kconfig``:
.. code-block:: kconfig
config MISC_EXAMPLE
bool "My example"
and the following lines to ``drivers/misc/Makefile``:
.. code-block:: make
obj-$(CONFIG_MISC_EXAMPLE) += example.o
Now we are ready to write the test. The test will be in
``drivers/misc/example-test.c``:
.. code-block:: c
#include <kunit/test.h>
#include "example.h"
/* Define the test cases. */
static void misc_example_add_test_basic(struct kunit *test)
{
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 1, misc_example_add(1, 0));
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 2, misc_example_add(1, 1));
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, misc_example_add(-1, 1));
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, INT_MAX, misc_example_add(0, INT_MAX));
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, -1, misc_example_add(INT_MAX, INT_MIN));
}
static void misc_example_test_failure(struct kunit *test)
{
KUNIT_FAIL(test, "This test never passes.");
}
static struct kunit_case misc_example_test_cases[] = {
KUNIT_CASE(misc_example_add_test_basic),
KUNIT_CASE(misc_example_test_failure),
{}
};
static struct kunit_suite misc_example_test_suite = {
.name = "misc-example",
.test_cases = misc_example_test_cases,
};
kunit_test_suite(misc_example_test_suite);
Now add the following to ``drivers/misc/Kconfig``:
.. code-block:: kconfig
config MISC_EXAMPLE_TEST
bool "Test for my example"
depends on MISC_EXAMPLE && KUNIT
and the following to ``drivers/misc/Makefile``:
.. code-block:: make
obj-$(CONFIG_MISC_EXAMPLE_TEST) += example-test.o
Now add it to your ``kunitconfig``:
.. code-block:: none
CONFIG_MISC_EXAMPLE=y
CONFIG_MISC_EXAMPLE_TEST=y
Now you can run the test:
.. code-block:: bash
./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py
You should see the following failure:
.. code-block:: none
...
[16:08:57] [PASSED] misc-example:misc_example_add_test_basic
[16:08:57] [FAILED] misc-example:misc_example_test_failure
[16:08:57] EXPECTATION FAILED at drivers/misc/example-test.c:17
[16:08:57] This test never passes.
...
Congrats! You just wrote your first KUnit test!
Next Steps
==========
* Check out the :doc:`usage` page for a more
in-depth explanation of KUnit.

576
Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,576 @@
.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
===========
Using KUnit
===========
The purpose of this document is to describe what KUnit is, how it works, how it
is intended to be used, and all the concepts and terminology that are needed to
understand it. This guide assumes a working knowledge of the Linux kernel and
some basic knowledge of testing.
For a high level introduction to KUnit, including setting up KUnit for your
project, see :doc:`start`.
Organization of this document
=============================
This document is organized into two main sections: Testing and Isolating
Behavior. The first covers what a unit test is and how to use KUnit to write
them. The second covers how to use KUnit to isolate code and make it possible
to unit test code that was otherwise un-unit-testable.
Testing
=======
What is KUnit?
--------------
"K" is short for "kernel" so "KUnit" is the "(Linux) Kernel Unit Testing
Framework." KUnit is intended first and foremost for writing unit tests; it is
general enough that it can be used to write integration tests; however, this is
a secondary goal. KUnit has no ambition of being the only testing framework for
the kernel; for example, it does not intend to be an end-to-end testing
framework.
What is Unit Testing?
---------------------
A `unit test <https://martinfowler.com/bliki/UnitTest.html>`_ is a test that
tests code at the smallest possible scope, a *unit* of code. In the C
programming language that's a function.
Unit tests should be written for all the publicly exposed functions in a
compilation unit; so that is all the functions that are exported in either a
*class* (defined below) or all functions which are **not** static.
Writing Tests
-------------
Test Cases
~~~~~~~~~~
The fundamental unit in KUnit is the test case. A test case is a function with
the signature ``void (*)(struct kunit *test)``. It calls a function to be tested
and then sets *expectations* for what should happen. For example:
.. code-block:: c
void example_test_success(struct kunit *test)
{
}
void example_test_failure(struct kunit *test)
{
KUNIT_FAIL(test, "This test never passes.");
}
In the above example ``example_test_success`` always passes because it does
nothing; no expectations are set, so all expectations pass. On the other hand
``example_test_failure`` always fails because it calls ``KUNIT_FAIL``, which is
a special expectation that logs a message and causes the test case to fail.
Expectations
~~~~~~~~~~~~
An *expectation* is a way to specify that you expect a piece of code to do
something in a test. An expectation is called like a function. A test is made
by setting expectations about the behavior of a piece of code under test; when
one or more of the expectations fail, the test case fails and information about
the failure is logged. For example:
.. code-block:: c
void add_test_basic(struct kunit *test)
{
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 1, add(1, 0));
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 2, add(1, 1));
}
In the above example ``add_test_basic`` makes a number of assertions about the
behavior of a function called ``add``; the first parameter is always of type
``struct kunit *``, which contains information about the current test context;
the second parameter, in this case, is what the value is expected to be; the
last value is what the value actually is. If ``add`` passes all of these
expectations, the test case, ``add_test_basic`` will pass; if any one of these
expectations fail, the test case will fail.
It is important to understand that a test case *fails* when any expectation is
violated; however, the test will continue running, potentially trying other
expectations until the test case ends or is otherwise terminated. This is as
opposed to *assertions* which are discussed later.
To learn about more expectations supported by KUnit, see :doc:`api/test`.
.. note::
A single test case should be pretty short, pretty easy to understand,
focused on a single behavior.
For example, if we wanted to properly test the add function above, we would
create additional tests cases which would each test a different property that an
add function should have like this:
.. code-block:: c
void add_test_basic(struct kunit *test)
{
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 1, add(1, 0));
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 2, add(1, 1));
}
void add_test_negative(struct kunit *test)
{
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, add(-1, 1));
}
void add_test_max(struct kunit *test)
{
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, INT_MAX, add(0, INT_MAX));
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, -1, add(INT_MAX, INT_MIN));
}
void add_test_overflow(struct kunit *test)
{
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, INT_MIN, add(INT_MAX, 1));
}
Notice how it is immediately obvious what all the properties that we are testing
for are.
Assertions
~~~~~~~~~~
KUnit also has the concept of an *assertion*. An assertion is just like an
expectation except the assertion immediately terminates the test case if it is
not satisfied.
For example:
.. code-block:: c
static void mock_test_do_expect_default_return(struct kunit *test)
{
struct mock_test_context *ctx = test->priv;
struct mock *mock = ctx->mock;
int param0 = 5, param1 = -5;
const char *two_param_types[] = {"int", "int"};
const void *two_params[] = {&param0, &param1};
const void *ret;
ret = mock->do_expect(mock,
"test_printk", test_printk,
two_param_types, two_params,
ARRAY_SIZE(two_params));
KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, ret);
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, -4, *((int *) ret));
}
In this example, the method under test should return a pointer to a value, so
if the pointer returned by the method is null or an errno, we don't want to
bother continuing the test since the following expectation could crash the test
case. `ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(...)` allows us to bail out of the test case if
the appropriate conditions have not been satisfied to complete the test.
Test Suites
~~~~~~~~~~~
Now obviously one unit test isn't very helpful; the power comes from having
many test cases covering all of your behaviors. Consequently it is common to
have many *similar* tests; in order to reduce duplication in these closely
related tests most unit testing frameworks provide the concept of a *test
suite*, in KUnit we call it a *test suite*; all it is is just a collection of
test cases for a unit of code with a set up function that gets invoked before
every test cases and then a tear down function that gets invoked after every
test case completes.
Example:
.. code-block:: c
static struct kunit_case example_test_cases[] = {
KUNIT_CASE(example_test_foo),
KUNIT_CASE(example_test_bar),
KUNIT_CASE(example_test_baz),
{}
};
static struct kunit_suite example_test_suite = {
.name = "example",
.init = example_test_init,
.exit = example_test_exit,
.test_cases = example_test_cases,
};
kunit_test_suite(example_test_suite);
In the above example the test suite, ``example_test_suite``, would run the test
cases ``example_test_foo``, ``example_test_bar``, and ``example_test_baz``,
each would have ``example_test_init`` called immediately before it and would
have ``example_test_exit`` called immediately after it.
``kunit_test_suite(example_test_suite)`` registers the test suite with the
KUnit test framework.
.. note::
A test case will only be run if it is associated with a test suite.
For a more information on these types of things see the :doc:`api/test`.
Isolating Behavior
==================
The most important aspect of unit testing that other forms of testing do not
provide is the ability to limit the amount of code under test to a single unit.
In practice, this is only possible by being able to control what code gets run
when the unit under test calls a function and this is usually accomplished
through some sort of indirection where a function is exposed as part of an API
such that the definition of that function can be changed without affecting the
rest of the code base. In the kernel this primarily comes from two constructs,
classes, structs that contain function pointers that are provided by the
implementer, and architecture specific functions which have definitions selected
at compile time.
Classes
-------
Classes are not a construct that is built into the C programming language;
however, it is an easily derived concept. Accordingly, pretty much every project
that does not use a standardized object oriented library (like GNOME's GObject)
has their own slightly different way of doing object oriented programming; the
Linux kernel is no exception.
The central concept in kernel object oriented programming is the class. In the
kernel, a *class* is a struct that contains function pointers. This creates a
contract between *implementers* and *users* since it forces them to use the
same function signature without having to call the function directly. In order
for it to truly be a class, the function pointers must specify that a pointer
to the class, known as a *class handle*, be one of the parameters; this makes
it possible for the member functions (also known as *methods*) to have access
to member variables (more commonly known as *fields*) allowing the same
implementation to have multiple *instances*.
Typically a class can be *overridden* by *child classes* by embedding the
*parent class* in the child class. Then when a method provided by the child
class is called, the child implementation knows that the pointer passed to it is
of a parent contained within the child; because of this, the child can compute
the pointer to itself because the pointer to the parent is always a fixed offset
from the pointer to the child; this offset is the offset of the parent contained
in the child struct. For example:
.. code-block:: c
struct shape {
int (*area)(struct shape *this);
};
struct rectangle {
struct shape parent;
int length;
int width;
};
int rectangle_area(struct shape *this)
{
struct rectangle *self = container_of(this, struct shape, parent);
return self->length * self->width;
};
void rectangle_new(struct rectangle *self, int length, int width)
{
self->parent.area = rectangle_area;
self->length = length;
self->width = width;
}
In this example (as in most kernel code) the operation of computing the pointer
to the child from the pointer to the parent is done by ``container_of``.
Faking Classes
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In order to unit test a piece of code that calls a method in a class, the
behavior of the method must be controllable, otherwise the test ceases to be a
unit test and becomes an integration test.
A fake just provides an implementation of a piece of code that is different than
what runs in a production instance, but behaves identically from the standpoint
of the callers; this is usually done to replace a dependency that is hard to
deal with, or is slow.
A good example for this might be implementing a fake EEPROM that just stores the
"contents" in an internal buffer. For example, let's assume we have a class that
represents an EEPROM:
.. code-block:: c
struct eeprom {
ssize_t (*read)(struct eeprom *this, size_t offset, char *buffer, size_t count);
ssize_t (*write)(struct eeprom *this, size_t offset, const char *buffer, size_t count);
};
And we want to test some code that buffers writes to the EEPROM:
.. code-block:: c
struct eeprom_buffer {
ssize_t (*write)(struct eeprom_buffer *this, const char *buffer, size_t count);
int flush(struct eeprom_buffer *this);
size_t flush_count; /* Flushes when buffer exceeds flush_count. */
};
struct eeprom_buffer *new_eeprom_buffer(struct eeprom *eeprom);
void destroy_eeprom_buffer(struct eeprom *eeprom);
We can easily test this code by *faking out* the underlying EEPROM:
.. code-block:: c
struct fake_eeprom {
struct eeprom parent;
char contents[FAKE_EEPROM_CONTENTS_SIZE];
};
ssize_t fake_eeprom_read(struct eeprom *parent, size_t offset, char *buffer, size_t count)
{
struct fake_eeprom *this = container_of(parent, struct fake_eeprom, parent);
count = min(count, FAKE_EEPROM_CONTENTS_SIZE - offset);
memcpy(buffer, this->contents + offset, count);
return count;
}
ssize_t fake_eeprom_write(struct eeprom *this, size_t offset, const char *buffer, size_t count)
{
struct fake_eeprom *this = container_of(parent, struct fake_eeprom, parent);
count = min(count, FAKE_EEPROM_CONTENTS_SIZE - offset);
memcpy(this->contents + offset, buffer, count);
return count;
}
void fake_eeprom_init(struct fake_eeprom *this)
{
this->parent.read = fake_eeprom_read;
this->parent.write = fake_eeprom_write;
memset(this->contents, 0, FAKE_EEPROM_CONTENTS_SIZE);
}
We can now use it to test ``struct eeprom_buffer``:
.. code-block:: c
struct eeprom_buffer_test {
struct fake_eeprom *fake_eeprom;
struct eeprom_buffer *eeprom_buffer;
};
static void eeprom_buffer_test_does_not_write_until_flush(struct kunit *test)
{
struct eeprom_buffer_test *ctx = test->priv;
struct eeprom_buffer *eeprom_buffer = ctx->eeprom_buffer;
struct fake_eeprom *fake_eeprom = ctx->fake_eeprom;
char buffer[] = {0xff};
eeprom_buffer->flush_count = SIZE_MAX;
eeprom_buffer->write(eeprom_buffer, buffer, 1);
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake_eeprom->contents[0], 0);
eeprom_buffer->write(eeprom_buffer, buffer, 1);
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake_eeprom->contents[1], 0);
eeprom_buffer->flush(eeprom_buffer);
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake_eeprom->contents[0], 0xff);
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake_eeprom->contents[1], 0xff);
}
static void eeprom_buffer_test_flushes_after_flush_count_met(struct kunit *test)
{
struct eeprom_buffer_test *ctx = test->priv;
struct eeprom_buffer *eeprom_buffer = ctx->eeprom_buffer;
struct fake_eeprom *fake_eeprom = ctx->fake_eeprom;
char buffer[] = {0xff};
eeprom_buffer->flush_count = 2;
eeprom_buffer->write(eeprom_buffer, buffer, 1);
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake_eeprom->contents[0], 0);
eeprom_buffer->write(eeprom_buffer, buffer, 1);
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake_eeprom->contents[0], 0xff);
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake_eeprom->contents[1], 0xff);
}
static void eeprom_buffer_test_flushes_increments_of_flush_count(struct kunit *test)
{
struct eeprom_buffer_test *ctx = test->priv;
struct eeprom_buffer *eeprom_buffer = ctx->eeprom_buffer;
struct fake_eeprom *fake_eeprom = ctx->fake_eeprom;
char buffer[] = {0xff, 0xff};
eeprom_buffer->flush_count = 2;
eeprom_buffer->write(eeprom_buffer, buffer, 1);
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake_eeprom->contents[0], 0);
eeprom_buffer->write(eeprom_buffer, buffer, 2);
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake_eeprom->contents[0], 0xff);
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake_eeprom->contents[1], 0xff);
/* Should have only flushed the first two bytes. */
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake_eeprom->contents[2], 0);
}
static int eeprom_buffer_test_init(struct kunit *test)
{
struct eeprom_buffer_test *ctx;
ctx = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*ctx), GFP_KERNEL);
KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, ctx);
ctx->fake_eeprom = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*ctx->fake_eeprom), GFP_KERNEL);
KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, ctx->fake_eeprom);
fake_eeprom_init(ctx->fake_eeprom);
ctx->eeprom_buffer = new_eeprom_buffer(&ctx->fake_eeprom->parent);
KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, ctx->eeprom_buffer);
test->priv = ctx;
return 0;
}
static void eeprom_buffer_test_exit(struct kunit *test)
{
struct eeprom_buffer_test *ctx = test->priv;
destroy_eeprom_buffer(ctx->eeprom_buffer);
}
.. _kunit-on-non-uml:
KUnit on non-UML architectures
==============================
By default KUnit uses UML as a way to provide dependencies for code under test.
Under most circumstances KUnit's usage of UML should be treated as an
implementation detail of how KUnit works under the hood. Nevertheless, there
are instances where being able to run architecture specific code, or test
against real hardware is desirable. For these reasons KUnit supports running on
other architectures.
Running existing KUnit tests on non-UML architectures
-----------------------------------------------------
There are some special considerations when running existing KUnit tests on
non-UML architectures:
* Hardware may not be deterministic, so a test that always passes or fails
when run under UML may not always do so on real hardware.
* Hardware and VM environments may not be hermetic. KUnit tries its best to
provide a hermetic environment to run tests; however, it cannot manage state
that it doesn't know about outside of the kernel. Consequently, tests that
may be hermetic on UML may not be hermetic on other architectures.
* Some features and tooling may not be supported outside of UML.
* Hardware and VMs are slower than UML.
None of these are reasons not to run your KUnit tests on real hardware; they are
only things to be aware of when doing so.
The biggest impediment will likely be that certain KUnit features and
infrastructure may not support your target environment. For example, at this
time the KUnit Wrapper (``tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py``) does not work outside
of UML. Unfortunately, there is no way around this. Using UML (or even just a
particular architecture) allows us to make a lot of assumptions that make it
possible to do things which might otherwise be impossible.
Nevertheless, all core KUnit framework features are fully supported on all
architectures, and using them is straightforward: all you need to do is to take
your kunitconfig, your Kconfig options for the tests you would like to run, and
merge them into whatever config your are using for your platform. That's it!
For example, let's say you have the following kunitconfig:
.. code-block:: none
CONFIG_KUNIT=y
CONFIG_KUNIT_EXAMPLE_TEST=y
If you wanted to run this test on an x86 VM, you might add the following config
options to your ``.config``:
.. code-block:: none
CONFIG_KUNIT=y
CONFIG_KUNIT_EXAMPLE_TEST=y
CONFIG_SERIAL_8250=y
CONFIG_SERIAL_8250_CONSOLE=y
All these new options do is enable support for a common serial console needed
for logging.
Next, you could build a kernel with these tests as follows:
.. code-block:: bash
make ARCH=x86 olddefconfig
make ARCH=x86
Once you have built a kernel, you could run it on QEMU as follows:
.. code-block:: bash
qemu-system-x86_64 -enable-kvm \
-m 1024 \
-kernel arch/x86_64/boot/bzImage \
-append 'console=ttyS0' \
--nographic
Interspersed in the kernel logs you might see the following:
.. code-block:: none
TAP version 14
# Subtest: example
1..1
# example_simple_test: initializing
ok 1 - example_simple_test
ok 1 - example
Congratulations, you just ran a KUnit test on the x86 architecture!
Writing new tests for other architectures
-----------------------------------------
The first thing you must do is ask yourself whether it is necessary to write a
KUnit test for a specific architecture, and then whether it is necessary to
write that test for a particular piece of hardware. In general, writing a test
that depends on having access to a particular piece of hardware or software (not
included in the Linux source repo) should be avoided at all costs.
Even if you only ever plan on running your KUnit test on your hardware
configuration, other people may want to run your tests and may not have access
to your hardware. If you write your test to run on UML, then anyone can run your
tests without knowing anything about your particular setup, and you can still
run your tests on your hardware setup just by compiling for your architecture.
.. important::
Always prefer tests that run on UML to tests that only run under a particular
architecture, and always prefer tests that run under QEMU or another easy
(and monitarily free) to obtain software environment to a specific piece of
hardware.
Nevertheless, there are still valid reasons to write an architecture or hardware
specific test: for example, you might want to test some code that really belongs
in ``arch/some-arch/*``. Even so, try your best to write the test so that it
does not depend on physical hardware: if some of your test cases don't need the
hardware, only require the hardware for tests that actually need it.
Now that you have narrowed down exactly what bits are hardware specific, the
actual procedure for writing and running the tests is pretty much the same as
writing normal KUnit tests. One special caveat is that you have to reset
hardware state in between test cases; if this is not possible, you may only be
able to run one test case per invocation.
.. TODO(brendanhiggins@google.com): Add an actual example of an architecture
dependent KUnit test.