On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 12:35 PM Daniel Latypov dlatypov@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 9:56 PM David Gow davidgow@google.com wrote:
<snip>
# Append coverage options to the current config
$ echo -e "CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL=y\nCONFIG_DEBUG_INFO=y\nCONFIG_GCOV=y" >> .kunit/.kunitconfig
$ echo -e "CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL=y\nCONFIG_DEBUG_INFO=y\nCONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_DWARF_TOOLCHAIN_DEFAULT=y\nCONFIG_GCOV=y" >> .kunit/.kunitconfig $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py runWould we want to instead use a chain of --kconfig_add arguments? (I think there are advantages either way...)
I've been considering this ever since the --kconfig_add patch was accepted. It's more compatible w/ commands using --kunitconfig, but it also looks very verbose. E.g. it looks like
$ tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --make_options=CC=/usr/bin/gcc-6 --kconfig_add=CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO=y --kconfig_add=CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_DWARF_TOOLCHAIN_DEFAULT=y --kconfig_add=CONFIG_GCOV=y
I don't think it's *that* much more verbose, but I see your point. I personally prefer this, but not enough to argue about it.
Neither looks very appealing to me, so I've just kept it as-is for now.
Maybe there's something we can do to make this easier (e.g. allowing --kunitconfig to be repeated and mergable)?
I would like --kunitconfig to be repeadable and mergable.