Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless+bounces-2419-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Message-ID: <d6940d0a80fcb522910c433fd3644ed5c524f6d5.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Subject: Re: pull-request: wireless-2024-01-22
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>, Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com>, 
 netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, David Gow
 <davidgow@google.com>, Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>, Shuah
 Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, 
 kunit-dev@googlegroups.com
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 23:06:20 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20240123134255.3eef6fd9@kernel.org>
References: <20240122153434.E0254C433C7@smtp.kernel.org>
	 <20240123084504.1de9b8ac@kernel.org>
	 <d4c1a7c715a1f47dc45c5d033822d8f47e304bd4.camel@sipsolutions.net>
	 <20240123134255.3eef6fd9@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.50.3 (3.50.3-1.fc39) 
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0

On Tue, 2024-01-23 at 13:42 -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>=20
> > We're also adding unit tests to iwlwifi (slowly), any idea if we should
> > enable that here also? It _is_ now possible to build PCI stuff on kunit=
,
> > but it requires some additional config options (virt-pci etc.), not sur=
e
> > that's desirable here? It doesn't need it at runtime for the tests, of
> > course.
>=20
> but curious to hear about driver testing recommendations.

Not sure I have any recommendations ... The test we posted is checking
an invariant (the devinfo array is sorted in the right way); we used to
have a check for this in the internal driver variant at init time, now
it's a kunit test and we don't have to carry the delta to upstream here.

I think Miri is also working on some additional tests for some driver-
internal logic though.

So not sure, I guess it'd be just like anything else you could use unit
testing for, certain self-contained parts of the code that don't really
otherwise need a device, etc.?

johannes