Searched +hist:1 +hist:e65174a (Results 1 - 8 of 8) sorted by relevance

/linux-master/drivers/video/logo/
H A D.gitignore1e65174a Tue Oct 18 09:26:15 MDT 2005 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@g5.osdl.org> Add some basic .gitignore files

This still leaves driver and architecture-specific subdirectories alone,
but gets rid of the bulk of the "generic" generated files that we should
ignore.

Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
1e65174a Tue Oct 18 09:26:15 MDT 2005 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@g5.osdl.org> Add some basic .gitignore files

This still leaves driver and architecture-specific subdirectories alone,
but gets rid of the bulk of the "generic" generated files that we should
ignore.

Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
/linux-master/scripts/mod/
H A D.gitignore1e65174a Tue Oct 18 09:26:15 MDT 2005 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@g5.osdl.org> Add some basic .gitignore files

This still leaves driver and architecture-specific subdirectories alone,
but gets rid of the bulk of the "generic" generated files that we should
ignore.

Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
1e65174a Tue Oct 18 09:26:15 MDT 2005 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@g5.osdl.org> Add some basic .gitignore files

This still leaves driver and architecture-specific subdirectories alone,
but gets rid of the bulk of the "generic" generated files that we should
ignore.

Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
/linux-master/usr/
H A D.gitignorediff 65e00e04 Sat Jan 04 08:02:37 MST 2020 Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org> initramfs: refactor the initramfs build rules

Currently, usr/gen_initramfs.sh takes care of all the use-cases:

[1] generates a cpio file unless CONFIG_INITRAMFS_SOURCE points to
a single cpio archive

[2] If CONFIG_INITRAMFS_SOURCE is the path to a cpio archive,
use it as-is.

[3] Compress the cpio file according to CONFIG_INITRAMFS_COMPRESSION_*
unless it is passed a compressed archive.

To simplify the script, move [2] and [3] to usr/Makefile.

If CONFIG_INITRAMFS_SOURCE is the path to a cpio archive, there is
no need to run this shell script.

For the cpio archive compression, you can re-use the rules from
scripts/Makefile.lib .

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>
diff d6fc9fcb Sun Jun 30 18:58:40 MDT 2019 Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> kbuild: compile-test exported headers to ensure they are self-contained

Multiple people have suggested compile-testing UAPI headers to ensure
they can be really included from user-space. "make headers_check" is
obviously not enough to catch bugs, and we often leak unresolved
references to user-space.

Use the new header-test-y syntax to implement it. Please note exported
headers are compile-tested with a completely different set of compiler
flags. The header search path is set to $(objtree)/usr/include since
exported headers should not include unexported ones.

We use -std=gnu89 for the kernel space since the kernel code highly
depends on GNU extensions. On the other hand, UAPI headers should be
written in more standardized C, so they are compiled with -std=c90.
This will emit errors if C++ style comments, the keyword 'inline', etc.
are used. Please use C style comments (/* ... */), '__inline__', etc.
in UAPI headers.

There is additional compiler requirement to enable this test because
many of UAPI headers include <stdlib.h>, <sys/ioctl.h>, <sys/time.h>,
etc. directly or indirectly. You cannot use kernel.org pre-built
toolchains [1] since they lack <stdlib.h>.

I reused CONFIG_CC_CAN_LINK to check the system header availability.
The intention is slightly different, but a compiler that can link
userspace programs provide system headers.

For now, a lot of headers need to be excluded because they cannot
be compiled standalone, but this is a good start point.

[1] https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/index.html

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Reviewed-by: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
diff d6fc9fcb Sun Jun 30 18:58:40 MDT 2019 Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> kbuild: compile-test exported headers to ensure they are self-contained

Multiple people have suggested compile-testing UAPI headers to ensure
they can be really included from user-space. "make headers_check" is
obviously not enough to catch bugs, and we often leak unresolved
references to user-space.

Use the new header-test-y syntax to implement it. Please note exported
headers are compile-tested with a completely different set of compiler
flags. The header search path is set to $(objtree)/usr/include since
exported headers should not include unexported ones.

We use -std=gnu89 for the kernel space since the kernel code highly
depends on GNU extensions. On the other hand, UAPI headers should be
written in more standardized C, so they are compiled with -std=c90.
This will emit errors if C++ style comments, the keyword 'inline', etc.
are used. Please use C style comments (/* ... */), '__inline__', etc.
in UAPI headers.

There is additional compiler requirement to enable this test because
many of UAPI headers include <stdlib.h>, <sys/ioctl.h>, <sys/time.h>,
etc. directly or indirectly. You cannot use kernel.org pre-built
toolchains [1] since they lack <stdlib.h>.

I reused CONFIG_CC_CAN_LINK to check the system header availability.
The intention is slightly different, but a compiler that can link
userspace programs provide system headers.

For now, a lot of headers need to be excluded because they cannot
be compiled standalone, but this is a good start point.

[1] https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/index.html

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Reviewed-by: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
1e65174a Tue Oct 18 09:26:15 MDT 2005 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@g5.osdl.org> Add some basic .gitignore files

This still leaves driver and architecture-specific subdirectories alone,
but gets rid of the bulk of the "generic" generated files that we should
ignore.

Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
1e65174a Tue Oct 18 09:26:15 MDT 2005 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@g5.osdl.org> Add some basic .gitignore files

This still leaves driver and architecture-specific subdirectories alone,
but gets rid of the bulk of the "generic" generated files that we should
ignore.

Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
/linux-master/scripts/basic/
H A D.gitignore1e65174a Tue Oct 18 09:26:15 MDT 2005 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@g5.osdl.org> Add some basic .gitignore files

This still leaves driver and architecture-specific subdirectories alone,
but gets rid of the bulk of the "generic" generated files that we should
ignore.

Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
1e65174a Tue Oct 18 09:26:15 MDT 2005 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@g5.osdl.org> Add some basic .gitignore files

This still leaves driver and architecture-specific subdirectories alone,
but gets rid of the bulk of the "generic" generated files that we should
ignore.

Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
/linux-master/scripts/kconfig/
H A D.gitignorediff cd58a91d Mon Feb 05 17:34:45 MST 2018 Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> kconfig: remove 'config*' pattern from .gitignnore

I could not figure out why this pattern should be ignored.
Checking commit 1e65174a3378 ("Add some basic .gitignore files")
did not help.

Let's remove this pattern, then see if it is really needed.

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Reviewed-by: Ulf Magnusson <ulfalizer@gmail.com>
1e65174a Tue Oct 18 09:26:15 MDT 2005 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@g5.osdl.org> Add some basic .gitignore files

This still leaves driver and architecture-specific subdirectories alone,
but gets rid of the bulk of the "generic" generated files that we should
ignore.

Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
1e65174a Tue Oct 18 09:26:15 MDT 2005 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@g5.osdl.org> Add some basic .gitignore files

This still leaves driver and architecture-specific subdirectories alone,
but gets rid of the bulk of the "generic" generated files that we should
ignore.

Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
/linux-master/lib/
H A D.gitignore1e65174a Tue Oct 18 09:26:15 MDT 2005 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@g5.osdl.org> Add some basic .gitignore files

This still leaves driver and architecture-specific subdirectories alone,
but gets rid of the bulk of the "generic" generated files that we should
ignore.

Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
1e65174a Tue Oct 18 09:26:15 MDT 2005 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@g5.osdl.org> Add some basic .gitignore files

This still leaves driver and architecture-specific subdirectories alone,
but gets rid of the bulk of the "generic" generated files that we should
ignore.

Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
/linux-master/scripts/
H A D.gitignorediff a66d733d Mon Jul 17 23:27:51 MDT 2023 Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org> rust: support running Rust documentation tests as KUnit ones

Rust has documentation tests: these are typically examples of
usage of any item (e.g. function, struct, module...).

They are very convenient because they are just written
alongside the documentation. For instance:

/// Sums two numbers.
///
/// ```
/// assert_eq!(mymod::f(10, 20), 30);
/// ```
pub fn f(a: i32, b: i32) -> i32 {
a + b
}

In userspace, the tests are collected and run via `rustdoc`.
Using the tool as-is would be useful already, since it allows
to compile-test most tests (thus enforcing they are kept
in sync with the code they document) and run those that do not
depend on in-kernel APIs.

However, by transforming the tests into a KUnit test suite,
they can also be run inside the kernel. Moreover, the tests
get to be compiled as other Rust kernel objects instead of
targeting userspace.

On top of that, the integration with KUnit means the Rust
support gets to reuse the existing testing facilities. For
instance, the kernel log would look like:

KTAP version 1
1..1
KTAP version 1
# Subtest: rust_doctests_kernel
1..59
# rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_0.location: rust/kernel/build_assert.rs:13
ok 1 rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_0
# rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_1.location: rust/kernel/build_assert.rs:56
ok 2 rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_1
# rust_doctest_kernel_init_rs_0.location: rust/kernel/init.rs:122
ok 3 rust_doctest_kernel_init_rs_0
...
# rust_doctest_kernel_types_rs_2.location: rust/kernel/types.rs:150
ok 59 rust_doctest_kernel_types_rs_2
# rust_doctests_kernel: pass:59 fail:0 skip:0 total:59
# Totals: pass:59 fail:0 skip:0 total:59
ok 1 rust_doctests_kernel

Therefore, add support for running Rust documentation tests
in KUnit. Some other notes about the current implementation
and support follow.

The transformation is performed by a couple scripts written
as Rust hostprogs.

Tests using the `?` operator are also supported as usual, e.g.:

/// ```
/// # use kernel::{spawn_work_item, workqueue};
/// spawn_work_item!(workqueue::system(), || pr_info!("x"))?;
/// # Ok::<(), Error>(())
/// ```

The tests are also compiled with Clippy under `CLIPPY=1`, just
like normal code, thus also benefitting from extra linting.

The names of the tests are currently automatically generated.
This allows to reduce the burden for documentation writers,
while keeping them fairly stable for bisection. This is an
improvement over the `rustdoc`-generated names, which include
the line number; but ideally we would like to get `rustdoc` to
provide the Rust item path and a number (for multiple examples
in a single documented Rust item).

In order for developers to easily see from which original line
a failed doctests came from, a KTAP diagnostic line is printed
to the log, containing the location (file and line) of the
original test (i.e. instead of the location in the generated
Rust file):

# rust_doctest_kernel_types_rs_2.location: rust/kernel/types.rs:150

This line follows the syntax for declaring test metadata in the
proposed KTAP v2 spec [1], which may be used for the proposed
KUnit test attributes API [2]. Thus hopefully this will make
migration easier later on (suggested by David [3]).

The original line in that test attribute is figured out by
providing an anchor (suggested by Boqun [4]). The original file
is found by walking the filesystem, checking directory prefixes
to reduce the amount of combinations to check, and it is only
done once per file. Ambiguities are detected and reported.

A notable difference from KUnit C tests is that the Rust tests
appear to assert using the usual `assert!` and `assert_eq!`
macros from the Rust standard library (`core`). We provide
a custom version that forwards the call to KUnit instead.
Importantly, these macros do not require passing context,
unlike the KUnit C ones (i.e. `struct kunit *`). This makes
them easier to use, and readers of the documentation do not need
to care about which testing framework is used. In addition, it
may allow us to test third-party code more easily in the future.

However, a current limitation is that KUnit does not support
assertions in other tasks. Thus we presently simply print an
error to the kernel log if an assertion actually failed. This
should be revisited to properly fail the test, perhaps saving
the context somewhere else, or letting KUnit handle it.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230420205734.1288498-1-rmoar@google.com/ [1]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20230707210947.1208717-1-rmoar@google.com/ [2]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/CABVgOSkOLO-8v6kdAGpmYnZUb+LKOX0CtYCo-Bge7r_2YTuXDQ@mail.gmail.com/ [3]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/ZIps86MbJF%2FiGIzd@boqun-archlinux/ [4]
Signed-off-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
diff a66d733d Mon Jul 17 23:27:51 MDT 2023 Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org> rust: support running Rust documentation tests as KUnit ones

Rust has documentation tests: these are typically examples of
usage of any item (e.g. function, struct, module...).

They are very convenient because they are just written
alongside the documentation. For instance:

/// Sums two numbers.
///
/// ```
/// assert_eq!(mymod::f(10, 20), 30);
/// ```
pub fn f(a: i32, b: i32) -> i32 {
a + b
}

In userspace, the tests are collected and run via `rustdoc`.
Using the tool as-is would be useful already, since it allows
to compile-test most tests (thus enforcing they are kept
in sync with the code they document) and run those that do not
depend on in-kernel APIs.

However, by transforming the tests into a KUnit test suite,
they can also be run inside the kernel. Moreover, the tests
get to be compiled as other Rust kernel objects instead of
targeting userspace.

On top of that, the integration with KUnit means the Rust
support gets to reuse the existing testing facilities. For
instance, the kernel log would look like:

KTAP version 1
1..1
KTAP version 1
# Subtest: rust_doctests_kernel
1..59
# rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_0.location: rust/kernel/build_assert.rs:13
ok 1 rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_0
# rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_1.location: rust/kernel/build_assert.rs:56
ok 2 rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_1
# rust_doctest_kernel_init_rs_0.location: rust/kernel/init.rs:122
ok 3 rust_doctest_kernel_init_rs_0
...
# rust_doctest_kernel_types_rs_2.location: rust/kernel/types.rs:150
ok 59 rust_doctest_kernel_types_rs_2
# rust_doctests_kernel: pass:59 fail:0 skip:0 total:59
# Totals: pass:59 fail:0 skip:0 total:59
ok 1 rust_doctests_kernel

Therefore, add support for running Rust documentation tests
in KUnit. Some other notes about the current implementation
and support follow.

The transformation is performed by a couple scripts written
as Rust hostprogs.

Tests using the `?` operator are also supported as usual, e.g.:

/// ```
/// # use kernel::{spawn_work_item, workqueue};
/// spawn_work_item!(workqueue::system(), || pr_info!("x"))?;
/// # Ok::<(), Error>(())
/// ```

The tests are also compiled with Clippy under `CLIPPY=1`, just
like normal code, thus also benefitting from extra linting.

The names of the tests are currently automatically generated.
This allows to reduce the burden for documentation writers,
while keeping them fairly stable for bisection. This is an
improvement over the `rustdoc`-generated names, which include
the line number; but ideally we would like to get `rustdoc` to
provide the Rust item path and a number (for multiple examples
in a single documented Rust item).

In order for developers to easily see from which original line
a failed doctests came from, a KTAP diagnostic line is printed
to the log, containing the location (file and line) of the
original test (i.e. instead of the location in the generated
Rust file):

# rust_doctest_kernel_types_rs_2.location: rust/kernel/types.rs:150

This line follows the syntax for declaring test metadata in the
proposed KTAP v2 spec [1], which may be used for the proposed
KUnit test attributes API [2]. Thus hopefully this will make
migration easier later on (suggested by David [3]).

The original line in that test attribute is figured out by
providing an anchor (suggested by Boqun [4]). The original file
is found by walking the filesystem, checking directory prefixes
to reduce the amount of combinations to check, and it is only
done once per file. Ambiguities are detected and reported.

A notable difference from KUnit C tests is that the Rust tests
appear to assert using the usual `assert!` and `assert_eq!`
macros from the Rust standard library (`core`). We provide
a custom version that forwards the call to KUnit instead.
Importantly, these macros do not require passing context,
unlike the KUnit C ones (i.e. `struct kunit *`). This makes
them easier to use, and readers of the documentation do not need
to care about which testing framework is used. In addition, it
may allow us to test third-party code more easily in the future.

However, a current limitation is that KUnit does not support
assertions in other tasks. Thus we presently simply print an
error to the kernel log if an assertion actually failed. This
should be revisited to properly fail the test, perhaps saving
the context somewhere else, or letting KUnit handle it.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230420205734.1288498-1-rmoar@google.com/ [1]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20230707210947.1208717-1-rmoar@google.com/ [2]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/CABVgOSkOLO-8v6kdAGpmYnZUb+LKOX0CtYCo-Bge7r_2YTuXDQ@mail.gmail.com/ [3]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/ZIps86MbJF%2FiGIzd@boqun-archlinux/ [4]
Signed-off-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
diff a66d733d Mon Jul 17 23:27:51 MDT 2023 Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org> rust: support running Rust documentation tests as KUnit ones

Rust has documentation tests: these are typically examples of
usage of any item (e.g. function, struct, module...).

They are very convenient because they are just written
alongside the documentation. For instance:

/// Sums two numbers.
///
/// ```
/// assert_eq!(mymod::f(10, 20), 30);
/// ```
pub fn f(a: i32, b: i32) -> i32 {
a + b
}

In userspace, the tests are collected and run via `rustdoc`.
Using the tool as-is would be useful already, since it allows
to compile-test most tests (thus enforcing they are kept
in sync with the code they document) and run those that do not
depend on in-kernel APIs.

However, by transforming the tests into a KUnit test suite,
they can also be run inside the kernel. Moreover, the tests
get to be compiled as other Rust kernel objects instead of
targeting userspace.

On top of that, the integration with KUnit means the Rust
support gets to reuse the existing testing facilities. For
instance, the kernel log would look like:

KTAP version 1
1..1
KTAP version 1
# Subtest: rust_doctests_kernel
1..59
# rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_0.location: rust/kernel/build_assert.rs:13
ok 1 rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_0
# rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_1.location: rust/kernel/build_assert.rs:56
ok 2 rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_1
# rust_doctest_kernel_init_rs_0.location: rust/kernel/init.rs:122
ok 3 rust_doctest_kernel_init_rs_0
...
# rust_doctest_kernel_types_rs_2.location: rust/kernel/types.rs:150
ok 59 rust_doctest_kernel_types_rs_2
# rust_doctests_kernel: pass:59 fail:0 skip:0 total:59
# Totals: pass:59 fail:0 skip:0 total:59
ok 1 rust_doctests_kernel

Therefore, add support for running Rust documentation tests
in KUnit. Some other notes about the current implementation
and support follow.

The transformation is performed by a couple scripts written
as Rust hostprogs.

Tests using the `?` operator are also supported as usual, e.g.:

/// ```
/// # use kernel::{spawn_work_item, workqueue};
/// spawn_work_item!(workqueue::system(), || pr_info!("x"))?;
/// # Ok::<(), Error>(())
/// ```

The tests are also compiled with Clippy under `CLIPPY=1`, just
like normal code, thus also benefitting from extra linting.

The names of the tests are currently automatically generated.
This allows to reduce the burden for documentation writers,
while keeping them fairly stable for bisection. This is an
improvement over the `rustdoc`-generated names, which include
the line number; but ideally we would like to get `rustdoc` to
provide the Rust item path and a number (for multiple examples
in a single documented Rust item).

In order for developers to easily see from which original line
a failed doctests came from, a KTAP diagnostic line is printed
to the log, containing the location (file and line) of the
original test (i.e. instead of the location in the generated
Rust file):

# rust_doctest_kernel_types_rs_2.location: rust/kernel/types.rs:150

This line follows the syntax for declaring test metadata in the
proposed KTAP v2 spec [1], which may be used for the proposed
KUnit test attributes API [2]. Thus hopefully this will make
migration easier later on (suggested by David [3]).

The original line in that test attribute is figured out by
providing an anchor (suggested by Boqun [4]). The original file
is found by walking the filesystem, checking directory prefixes
to reduce the amount of combinations to check, and it is only
done once per file. Ambiguities are detected and reported.

A notable difference from KUnit C tests is that the Rust tests
appear to assert using the usual `assert!` and `assert_eq!`
macros from the Rust standard library (`core`). We provide
a custom version that forwards the call to KUnit instead.
Importantly, these macros do not require passing context,
unlike the KUnit C ones (i.e. `struct kunit *`). This makes
them easier to use, and readers of the documentation do not need
to care about which testing framework is used. In addition, it
may allow us to test third-party code more easily in the future.

However, a current limitation is that KUnit does not support
assertions in other tasks. Thus we presently simply print an
error to the kernel log if an assertion actually failed. This
should be revisited to properly fail the test, perhaps saving
the context somewhere else, or letting KUnit handle it.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230420205734.1288498-1-rmoar@google.com/ [1]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20230707210947.1208717-1-rmoar@google.com/ [2]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/CABVgOSkOLO-8v6kdAGpmYnZUb+LKOX0CtYCo-Bge7r_2YTuXDQ@mail.gmail.com/ [3]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/ZIps86MbJF%2FiGIzd@boqun-archlinux/ [4]
Signed-off-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
diff a66d733d Mon Jul 17 23:27:51 MDT 2023 Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org> rust: support running Rust documentation tests as KUnit ones

Rust has documentation tests: these are typically examples of
usage of any item (e.g. function, struct, module...).

They are very convenient because they are just written
alongside the documentation. For instance:

/// Sums two numbers.
///
/// ```
/// assert_eq!(mymod::f(10, 20), 30);
/// ```
pub fn f(a: i32, b: i32) -> i32 {
a + b
}

In userspace, the tests are collected and run via `rustdoc`.
Using the tool as-is would be useful already, since it allows
to compile-test most tests (thus enforcing they are kept
in sync with the code they document) and run those that do not
depend on in-kernel APIs.

However, by transforming the tests into a KUnit test suite,
they can also be run inside the kernel. Moreover, the tests
get to be compiled as other Rust kernel objects instead of
targeting userspace.

On top of that, the integration with KUnit means the Rust
support gets to reuse the existing testing facilities. For
instance, the kernel log would look like:

KTAP version 1
1..1
KTAP version 1
# Subtest: rust_doctests_kernel
1..59
# rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_0.location: rust/kernel/build_assert.rs:13
ok 1 rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_0
# rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_1.location: rust/kernel/build_assert.rs:56
ok 2 rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_1
# rust_doctest_kernel_init_rs_0.location: rust/kernel/init.rs:122
ok 3 rust_doctest_kernel_init_rs_0
...
# rust_doctest_kernel_types_rs_2.location: rust/kernel/types.rs:150
ok 59 rust_doctest_kernel_types_rs_2
# rust_doctests_kernel: pass:59 fail:0 skip:0 total:59
# Totals: pass:59 fail:0 skip:0 total:59
ok 1 rust_doctests_kernel

Therefore, add support for running Rust documentation tests
in KUnit. Some other notes about the current implementation
and support follow.

The transformation is performed by a couple scripts written
as Rust hostprogs.

Tests using the `?` operator are also supported as usual, e.g.:

/// ```
/// # use kernel::{spawn_work_item, workqueue};
/// spawn_work_item!(workqueue::system(), || pr_info!("x"))?;
/// # Ok::<(), Error>(())
/// ```

The tests are also compiled with Clippy under `CLIPPY=1`, just
like normal code, thus also benefitting from extra linting.

The names of the tests are currently automatically generated.
This allows to reduce the burden for documentation writers,
while keeping them fairly stable for bisection. This is an
improvement over the `rustdoc`-generated names, which include
the line number; but ideally we would like to get `rustdoc` to
provide the Rust item path and a number (for multiple examples
in a single documented Rust item).

In order for developers to easily see from which original line
a failed doctests came from, a KTAP diagnostic line is printed
to the log, containing the location (file and line) of the
original test (i.e. instead of the location in the generated
Rust file):

# rust_doctest_kernel_types_rs_2.location: rust/kernel/types.rs:150

This line follows the syntax for declaring test metadata in the
proposed KTAP v2 spec [1], which may be used for the proposed
KUnit test attributes API [2]. Thus hopefully this will make
migration easier later on (suggested by David [3]).

The original line in that test attribute is figured out by
providing an anchor (suggested by Boqun [4]). The original file
is found by walking the filesystem, checking directory prefixes
to reduce the amount of combinations to check, and it is only
done once per file. Ambiguities are detected and reported.

A notable difference from KUnit C tests is that the Rust tests
appear to assert using the usual `assert!` and `assert_eq!`
macros from the Rust standard library (`core`). We provide
a custom version that forwards the call to KUnit instead.
Importantly, these macros do not require passing context,
unlike the KUnit C ones (i.e. `struct kunit *`). This makes
them easier to use, and readers of the documentation do not need
to care about which testing framework is used. In addition, it
may allow us to test third-party code more easily in the future.

However, a current limitation is that KUnit does not support
assertions in other tasks. Thus we presently simply print an
error to the kernel log if an assertion actually failed. This
should be revisited to properly fail the test, perhaps saving
the context somewhere else, or letting KUnit handle it.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230420205734.1288498-1-rmoar@google.com/ [1]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20230707210947.1208717-1-rmoar@google.com/ [2]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/CABVgOSkOLO-8v6kdAGpmYnZUb+LKOX0CtYCo-Bge7r_2YTuXDQ@mail.gmail.com/ [3]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/ZIps86MbJF%2FiGIzd@boqun-archlinux/ [4]
Signed-off-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
diff a66d733d Mon Jul 17 23:27:51 MDT 2023 Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org> rust: support running Rust documentation tests as KUnit ones

Rust has documentation tests: these are typically examples of
usage of any item (e.g. function, struct, module...).

They are very convenient because they are just written
alongside the documentation. For instance:

/// Sums two numbers.
///
/// ```
/// assert_eq!(mymod::f(10, 20), 30);
/// ```
pub fn f(a: i32, b: i32) -> i32 {
a + b
}

In userspace, the tests are collected and run via `rustdoc`.
Using the tool as-is would be useful already, since it allows
to compile-test most tests (thus enforcing they are kept
in sync with the code they document) and run those that do not
depend on in-kernel APIs.

However, by transforming the tests into a KUnit test suite,
they can also be run inside the kernel. Moreover, the tests
get to be compiled as other Rust kernel objects instead of
targeting userspace.

On top of that, the integration with KUnit means the Rust
support gets to reuse the existing testing facilities. For
instance, the kernel log would look like:

KTAP version 1
1..1
KTAP version 1
# Subtest: rust_doctests_kernel
1..59
# rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_0.location: rust/kernel/build_assert.rs:13
ok 1 rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_0
# rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_1.location: rust/kernel/build_assert.rs:56
ok 2 rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_1
# rust_doctest_kernel_init_rs_0.location: rust/kernel/init.rs:122
ok 3 rust_doctest_kernel_init_rs_0
...
# rust_doctest_kernel_types_rs_2.location: rust/kernel/types.rs:150
ok 59 rust_doctest_kernel_types_rs_2
# rust_doctests_kernel: pass:59 fail:0 skip:0 total:59
# Totals: pass:59 fail:0 skip:0 total:59
ok 1 rust_doctests_kernel

Therefore, add support for running Rust documentation tests
in KUnit. Some other notes about the current implementation
and support follow.

The transformation is performed by a couple scripts written
as Rust hostprogs.

Tests using the `?` operator are also supported as usual, e.g.:

/// ```
/// # use kernel::{spawn_work_item, workqueue};
/// spawn_work_item!(workqueue::system(), || pr_info!("x"))?;
/// # Ok::<(), Error>(())
/// ```

The tests are also compiled with Clippy under `CLIPPY=1`, just
like normal code, thus also benefitting from extra linting.

The names of the tests are currently automatically generated.
This allows to reduce the burden for documentation writers,
while keeping them fairly stable for bisection. This is an
improvement over the `rustdoc`-generated names, which include
the line number; but ideally we would like to get `rustdoc` to
provide the Rust item path and a number (for multiple examples
in a single documented Rust item).

In order for developers to easily see from which original line
a failed doctests came from, a KTAP diagnostic line is printed
to the log, containing the location (file and line) of the
original test (i.e. instead of the location in the generated
Rust file):

# rust_doctest_kernel_types_rs_2.location: rust/kernel/types.rs:150

This line follows the syntax for declaring test metadata in the
proposed KTAP v2 spec [1], which may be used for the proposed
KUnit test attributes API [2]. Thus hopefully this will make
migration easier later on (suggested by David [3]).

The original line in that test attribute is figured out by
providing an anchor (suggested by Boqun [4]). The original file
is found by walking the filesystem, checking directory prefixes
to reduce the amount of combinations to check, and it is only
done once per file. Ambiguities are detected and reported.

A notable difference from KUnit C tests is that the Rust tests
appear to assert using the usual `assert!` and `assert_eq!`
macros from the Rust standard library (`core`). We provide
a custom version that forwards the call to KUnit instead.
Importantly, these macros do not require passing context,
unlike the KUnit C ones (i.e. `struct kunit *`). This makes
them easier to use, and readers of the documentation do not need
to care about which testing framework is used. In addition, it
may allow us to test third-party code more easily in the future.

However, a current limitation is that KUnit does not support
assertions in other tasks. Thus we presently simply print an
error to the kernel log if an assertion actually failed. This
should be revisited to properly fail the test, perhaps saving
the context somewhere else, or letting KUnit handle it.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230420205734.1288498-1-rmoar@google.com/ [1]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20230707210947.1208717-1-rmoar@google.com/ [2]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/CABVgOSkOLO-8v6kdAGpmYnZUb+LKOX0CtYCo-Bge7r_2YTuXDQ@mail.gmail.com/ [3]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/ZIps86MbJF%2FiGIzd@boqun-archlinux/ [4]
Signed-off-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
diff a66d733d Mon Jul 17 23:27:51 MDT 2023 Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org> rust: support running Rust documentation tests as KUnit ones

Rust has documentation tests: these are typically examples of
usage of any item (e.g. function, struct, module...).

They are very convenient because they are just written
alongside the documentation. For instance:

/// Sums two numbers.
///
/// ```
/// assert_eq!(mymod::f(10, 20), 30);
/// ```
pub fn f(a: i32, b: i32) -> i32 {
a + b
}

In userspace, the tests are collected and run via `rustdoc`.
Using the tool as-is would be useful already, since it allows
to compile-test most tests (thus enforcing they are kept
in sync with the code they document) and run those that do not
depend on in-kernel APIs.

However, by transforming the tests into a KUnit test suite,
they can also be run inside the kernel. Moreover, the tests
get to be compiled as other Rust kernel objects instead of
targeting userspace.

On top of that, the integration with KUnit means the Rust
support gets to reuse the existing testing facilities. For
instance, the kernel log would look like:

KTAP version 1
1..1
KTAP version 1
# Subtest: rust_doctests_kernel
1..59
# rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_0.location: rust/kernel/build_assert.rs:13
ok 1 rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_0
# rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_1.location: rust/kernel/build_assert.rs:56
ok 2 rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_1
# rust_doctest_kernel_init_rs_0.location: rust/kernel/init.rs:122
ok 3 rust_doctest_kernel_init_rs_0
...
# rust_doctest_kernel_types_rs_2.location: rust/kernel/types.rs:150
ok 59 rust_doctest_kernel_types_rs_2
# rust_doctests_kernel: pass:59 fail:0 skip:0 total:59
# Totals: pass:59 fail:0 skip:0 total:59
ok 1 rust_doctests_kernel

Therefore, add support for running Rust documentation tests
in KUnit. Some other notes about the current implementation
and support follow.

The transformation is performed by a couple scripts written
as Rust hostprogs.

Tests using the `?` operator are also supported as usual, e.g.:

/// ```
/// # use kernel::{spawn_work_item, workqueue};
/// spawn_work_item!(workqueue::system(), || pr_info!("x"))?;
/// # Ok::<(), Error>(())
/// ```

The tests are also compiled with Clippy under `CLIPPY=1`, just
like normal code, thus also benefitting from extra linting.

The names of the tests are currently automatically generated.
This allows to reduce the burden for documentation writers,
while keeping them fairly stable for bisection. This is an
improvement over the `rustdoc`-generated names, which include
the line number; but ideally we would like to get `rustdoc` to
provide the Rust item path and a number (for multiple examples
in a single documented Rust item).

In order for developers to easily see from which original line
a failed doctests came from, a KTAP diagnostic line is printed
to the log, containing the location (file and line) of the
original test (i.e. instead of the location in the generated
Rust file):

# rust_doctest_kernel_types_rs_2.location: rust/kernel/types.rs:150

This line follows the syntax for declaring test metadata in the
proposed KTAP v2 spec [1], which may be used for the proposed
KUnit test attributes API [2]. Thus hopefully this will make
migration easier later on (suggested by David [3]).

The original line in that test attribute is figured out by
providing an anchor (suggested by Boqun [4]). The original file
is found by walking the filesystem, checking directory prefixes
to reduce the amount of combinations to check, and it is only
done once per file. Ambiguities are detected and reported.

A notable difference from KUnit C tests is that the Rust tests
appear to assert using the usual `assert!` and `assert_eq!`
macros from the Rust standard library (`core`). We provide
a custom version that forwards the call to KUnit instead.
Importantly, these macros do not require passing context,
unlike the KUnit C ones (i.e. `struct kunit *`). This makes
them easier to use, and readers of the documentation do not need
to care about which testing framework is used. In addition, it
may allow us to test third-party code more easily in the future.

However, a current limitation is that KUnit does not support
assertions in other tasks. Thus we presently simply print an
error to the kernel log if an assertion actually failed. This
should be revisited to properly fail the test, perhaps saving
the context somewhere else, or letting KUnit handle it.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230420205734.1288498-1-rmoar@google.com/ [1]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20230707210947.1208717-1-rmoar@google.com/ [2]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/CABVgOSkOLO-8v6kdAGpmYnZUb+LKOX0CtYCo-Bge7r_2YTuXDQ@mail.gmail.com/ [3]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/ZIps86MbJF%2FiGIzd@boqun-archlinux/ [4]
Signed-off-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
diff a66d733d Mon Jul 17 23:27:51 MDT 2023 Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org> rust: support running Rust documentation tests as KUnit ones

Rust has documentation tests: these are typically examples of
usage of any item (e.g. function, struct, module...).

They are very convenient because they are just written
alongside the documentation. For instance:

/// Sums two numbers.
///
/// ```
/// assert_eq!(mymod::f(10, 20), 30);
/// ```
pub fn f(a: i32, b: i32) -> i32 {
a + b
}

In userspace, the tests are collected and run via `rustdoc`.
Using the tool as-is would be useful already, since it allows
to compile-test most tests (thus enforcing they are kept
in sync with the code they document) and run those that do not
depend on in-kernel APIs.

However, by transforming the tests into a KUnit test suite,
they can also be run inside the kernel. Moreover, the tests
get to be compiled as other Rust kernel objects instead of
targeting userspace.

On top of that, the integration with KUnit means the Rust
support gets to reuse the existing testing facilities. For
instance, the kernel log would look like:

KTAP version 1
1..1
KTAP version 1
# Subtest: rust_doctests_kernel
1..59
# rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_0.location: rust/kernel/build_assert.rs:13
ok 1 rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_0
# rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_1.location: rust/kernel/build_assert.rs:56
ok 2 rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_1
# rust_doctest_kernel_init_rs_0.location: rust/kernel/init.rs:122
ok 3 rust_doctest_kernel_init_rs_0
...
# rust_doctest_kernel_types_rs_2.location: rust/kernel/types.rs:150
ok 59 rust_doctest_kernel_types_rs_2
# rust_doctests_kernel: pass:59 fail:0 skip:0 total:59
# Totals: pass:59 fail:0 skip:0 total:59
ok 1 rust_doctests_kernel

Therefore, add support for running Rust documentation tests
in KUnit. Some other notes about the current implementation
and support follow.

The transformation is performed by a couple scripts written
as Rust hostprogs.

Tests using the `?` operator are also supported as usual, e.g.:

/// ```
/// # use kernel::{spawn_work_item, workqueue};
/// spawn_work_item!(workqueue::system(), || pr_info!("x"))?;
/// # Ok::<(), Error>(())
/// ```

The tests are also compiled with Clippy under `CLIPPY=1`, just
like normal code, thus also benefitting from extra linting.

The names of the tests are currently automatically generated.
This allows to reduce the burden for documentation writers,
while keeping them fairly stable for bisection. This is an
improvement over the `rustdoc`-generated names, which include
the line number; but ideally we would like to get `rustdoc` to
provide the Rust item path and a number (for multiple examples
in a single documented Rust item).

In order for developers to easily see from which original line
a failed doctests came from, a KTAP diagnostic line is printed
to the log, containing the location (file and line) of the
original test (i.e. instead of the location in the generated
Rust file):

# rust_doctest_kernel_types_rs_2.location: rust/kernel/types.rs:150

This line follows the syntax for declaring test metadata in the
proposed KTAP v2 spec [1], which may be used for the proposed
KUnit test attributes API [2]. Thus hopefully this will make
migration easier later on (suggested by David [3]).

The original line in that test attribute is figured out by
providing an anchor (suggested by Boqun [4]). The original file
is found by walking the filesystem, checking directory prefixes
to reduce the amount of combinations to check, and it is only
done once per file. Ambiguities are detected and reported.

A notable difference from KUnit C tests is that the Rust tests
appear to assert using the usual `assert!` and `assert_eq!`
macros from the Rust standard library (`core`). We provide
a custom version that forwards the call to KUnit instead.
Importantly, these macros do not require passing context,
unlike the KUnit C ones (i.e. `struct kunit *`). This makes
them easier to use, and readers of the documentation do not need
to care about which testing framework is used. In addition, it
may allow us to test third-party code more easily in the future.

However, a current limitation is that KUnit does not support
assertions in other tasks. Thus we presently simply print an
error to the kernel log if an assertion actually failed. This
should be revisited to properly fail the test, perhaps saving
the context somewhere else, or letting KUnit handle it.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230420205734.1288498-1-rmoar@google.com/ [1]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20230707210947.1208717-1-rmoar@google.com/ [2]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/CABVgOSkOLO-8v6kdAGpmYnZUb+LKOX0CtYCo-Bge7r_2YTuXDQ@mail.gmail.com/ [3]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/ZIps86MbJF%2FiGIzd@boqun-archlinux/ [4]
Signed-off-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
diff a66d733d Mon Jul 17 23:27:51 MDT 2023 Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org> rust: support running Rust documentation tests as KUnit ones

Rust has documentation tests: these are typically examples of
usage of any item (e.g. function, struct, module...).

They are very convenient because they are just written
alongside the documentation. For instance:

/// Sums two numbers.
///
/// ```
/// assert_eq!(mymod::f(10, 20), 30);
/// ```
pub fn f(a: i32, b: i32) -> i32 {
a + b
}

In userspace, the tests are collected and run via `rustdoc`.
Using the tool as-is would be useful already, since it allows
to compile-test most tests (thus enforcing they are kept
in sync with the code they document) and run those that do not
depend on in-kernel APIs.

However, by transforming the tests into a KUnit test suite,
they can also be run inside the kernel. Moreover, the tests
get to be compiled as other Rust kernel objects instead of
targeting userspace.

On top of that, the integration with KUnit means the Rust
support gets to reuse the existing testing facilities. For
instance, the kernel log would look like:

KTAP version 1
1..1
KTAP version 1
# Subtest: rust_doctests_kernel
1..59
# rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_0.location: rust/kernel/build_assert.rs:13
ok 1 rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_0
# rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_1.location: rust/kernel/build_assert.rs:56
ok 2 rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_1
# rust_doctest_kernel_init_rs_0.location: rust/kernel/init.rs:122
ok 3 rust_doctest_kernel_init_rs_0
...
# rust_doctest_kernel_types_rs_2.location: rust/kernel/types.rs:150
ok 59 rust_doctest_kernel_types_rs_2
# rust_doctests_kernel: pass:59 fail:0 skip:0 total:59
# Totals: pass:59 fail:0 skip:0 total:59
ok 1 rust_doctests_kernel

Therefore, add support for running Rust documentation tests
in KUnit. Some other notes about the current implementation
and support follow.

The transformation is performed by a couple scripts written
as Rust hostprogs.

Tests using the `?` operator are also supported as usual, e.g.:

/// ```
/// # use kernel::{spawn_work_item, workqueue};
/// spawn_work_item!(workqueue::system(), || pr_info!("x"))?;
/// # Ok::<(), Error>(())
/// ```

The tests are also compiled with Clippy under `CLIPPY=1`, just
like normal code, thus also benefitting from extra linting.

The names of the tests are currently automatically generated.
This allows to reduce the burden for documentation writers,
while keeping them fairly stable for bisection. This is an
improvement over the `rustdoc`-generated names, which include
the line number; but ideally we would like to get `rustdoc` to
provide the Rust item path and a number (for multiple examples
in a single documented Rust item).

In order for developers to easily see from which original line
a failed doctests came from, a KTAP diagnostic line is printed
to the log, containing the location (file and line) of the
original test (i.e. instead of the location in the generated
Rust file):

# rust_doctest_kernel_types_rs_2.location: rust/kernel/types.rs:150

This line follows the syntax for declaring test metadata in the
proposed KTAP v2 spec [1], which may be used for the proposed
KUnit test attributes API [2]. Thus hopefully this will make
migration easier later on (suggested by David [3]).

The original line in that test attribute is figured out by
providing an anchor (suggested by Boqun [4]). The original file
is found by walking the filesystem, checking directory prefixes
to reduce the amount of combinations to check, and it is only
done once per file. Ambiguities are detected and reported.

A notable difference from KUnit C tests is that the Rust tests
appear to assert using the usual `assert!` and `assert_eq!`
macros from the Rust standard library (`core`). We provide
a custom version that forwards the call to KUnit instead.
Importantly, these macros do not require passing context,
unlike the KUnit C ones (i.e. `struct kunit *`). This makes
them easier to use, and readers of the documentation do not need
to care about which testing framework is used. In addition, it
may allow us to test third-party code more easily in the future.

However, a current limitation is that KUnit does not support
assertions in other tasks. Thus we presently simply print an
error to the kernel log if an assertion actually failed. This
should be revisited to properly fail the test, perhaps saving
the context somewhere else, or letting KUnit handle it.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230420205734.1288498-1-rmoar@google.com/ [1]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20230707210947.1208717-1-rmoar@google.com/ [2]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/CABVgOSkOLO-8v6kdAGpmYnZUb+LKOX0CtYCo-Bge7r_2YTuXDQ@mail.gmail.com/ [3]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/ZIps86MbJF%2FiGIzd@boqun-archlinux/ [4]
Signed-off-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
diff a66d733d Mon Jul 17 23:27:51 MDT 2023 Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org> rust: support running Rust documentation tests as KUnit ones

Rust has documentation tests: these are typically examples of
usage of any item (e.g. function, struct, module...).

They are very convenient because they are just written
alongside the documentation. For instance:

/// Sums two numbers.
///
/// ```
/// assert_eq!(mymod::f(10, 20), 30);
/// ```
pub fn f(a: i32, b: i32) -> i32 {
a + b
}

In userspace, the tests are collected and run via `rustdoc`.
Using the tool as-is would be useful already, since it allows
to compile-test most tests (thus enforcing they are kept
in sync with the code they document) and run those that do not
depend on in-kernel APIs.

However, by transforming the tests into a KUnit test suite,
they can also be run inside the kernel. Moreover, the tests
get to be compiled as other Rust kernel objects instead of
targeting userspace.

On top of that, the integration with KUnit means the Rust
support gets to reuse the existing testing facilities. For
instance, the kernel log would look like:

KTAP version 1
1..1
KTAP version 1
# Subtest: rust_doctests_kernel
1..59
# rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_0.location: rust/kernel/build_assert.rs:13
ok 1 rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_0
# rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_1.location: rust/kernel/build_assert.rs:56
ok 2 rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_1
# rust_doctest_kernel_init_rs_0.location: rust/kernel/init.rs:122
ok 3 rust_doctest_kernel_init_rs_0
...
# rust_doctest_kernel_types_rs_2.location: rust/kernel/types.rs:150
ok 59 rust_doctest_kernel_types_rs_2
# rust_doctests_kernel: pass:59 fail:0 skip:0 total:59
# Totals: pass:59 fail:0 skip:0 total:59
ok 1 rust_doctests_kernel

Therefore, add support for running Rust documentation tests
in KUnit. Some other notes about the current implementation
and support follow.

The transformation is performed by a couple scripts written
as Rust hostprogs.

Tests using the `?` operator are also supported as usual, e.g.:

/// ```
/// # use kernel::{spawn_work_item, workqueue};
/// spawn_work_item!(workqueue::system(), || pr_info!("x"))?;
/// # Ok::<(), Error>(())
/// ```

The tests are also compiled with Clippy under `CLIPPY=1`, just
like normal code, thus also benefitting from extra linting.

The names of the tests are currently automatically generated.
This allows to reduce the burden for documentation writers,
while keeping them fairly stable for bisection. This is an
improvement over the `rustdoc`-generated names, which include
the line number; but ideally we would like to get `rustdoc` to
provide the Rust item path and a number (for multiple examples
in a single documented Rust item).

In order for developers to easily see from which original line
a failed doctests came from, a KTAP diagnostic line is printed
to the log, containing the location (file and line) of the
original test (i.e. instead of the location in the generated
Rust file):

# rust_doctest_kernel_types_rs_2.location: rust/kernel/types.rs:150

This line follows the syntax for declaring test metadata in the
proposed KTAP v2 spec [1], which may be used for the proposed
KUnit test attributes API [2]. Thus hopefully this will make
migration easier later on (suggested by David [3]).

The original line in that test attribute is figured out by
providing an anchor (suggested by Boqun [4]). The original file
is found by walking the filesystem, checking directory prefixes
to reduce the amount of combinations to check, and it is only
done once per file. Ambiguities are detected and reported.

A notable difference from KUnit C tests is that the Rust tests
appear to assert using the usual `assert!` and `assert_eq!`
macros from the Rust standard library (`core`). We provide
a custom version that forwards the call to KUnit instead.
Importantly, these macros do not require passing context,
unlike the KUnit C ones (i.e. `struct kunit *`). This makes
them easier to use, and readers of the documentation do not need
to care about which testing framework is used. In addition, it
may allow us to test third-party code more easily in the future.

However, a current limitation is that KUnit does not support
assertions in other tasks. Thus we presently simply print an
error to the kernel log if an assertion actually failed. This
should be revisited to properly fail the test, perhaps saving
the context somewhere else, or letting KUnit handle it.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230420205734.1288498-1-rmoar@google.com/ [1]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20230707210947.1208717-1-rmoar@google.com/ [2]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/CABVgOSkOLO-8v6kdAGpmYnZUb+LKOX0CtYCo-Bge7r_2YTuXDQ@mail.gmail.com/ [3]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/ZIps86MbJF%2FiGIzd@boqun-archlinux/ [4]
Signed-off-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
diff a66d733d Mon Jul 17 23:27:51 MDT 2023 Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org> rust: support running Rust documentation tests as KUnit ones

Rust has documentation tests: these are typically examples of
usage of any item (e.g. function, struct, module...).

They are very convenient because they are just written
alongside the documentation. For instance:

/// Sums two numbers.
///
/// ```
/// assert_eq!(mymod::f(10, 20), 30);
/// ```
pub fn f(a: i32, b: i32) -> i32 {
a + b
}

In userspace, the tests are collected and run via `rustdoc`.
Using the tool as-is would be useful already, since it allows
to compile-test most tests (thus enforcing they are kept
in sync with the code they document) and run those that do not
depend on in-kernel APIs.

However, by transforming the tests into a KUnit test suite,
they can also be run inside the kernel. Moreover, the tests
get to be compiled as other Rust kernel objects instead of
targeting userspace.

On top of that, the integration with KUnit means the Rust
support gets to reuse the existing testing facilities. For
instance, the kernel log would look like:

KTAP version 1
1..1
KTAP version 1
# Subtest: rust_doctests_kernel
1..59
# rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_0.location: rust/kernel/build_assert.rs:13
ok 1 rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_0
# rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_1.location: rust/kernel/build_assert.rs:56
ok 2 rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_1
# rust_doctest_kernel_init_rs_0.location: rust/kernel/init.rs:122
ok 3 rust_doctest_kernel_init_rs_0
...
# rust_doctest_kernel_types_rs_2.location: rust/kernel/types.rs:150
ok 59 rust_doctest_kernel_types_rs_2
# rust_doctests_kernel: pass:59 fail:0 skip:0 total:59
# Totals: pass:59 fail:0 skip:0 total:59
ok 1 rust_doctests_kernel

Therefore, add support for running Rust documentation tests
in KUnit. Some other notes about the current implementation
and support follow.

The transformation is performed by a couple scripts written
as Rust hostprogs.

Tests using the `?` operator are also supported as usual, e.g.:

/// ```
/// # use kernel::{spawn_work_item, workqueue};
/// spawn_work_item!(workqueue::system(), || pr_info!("x"))?;
/// # Ok::<(), Error>(())
/// ```

The tests are also compiled with Clippy under `CLIPPY=1`, just
like normal code, thus also benefitting from extra linting.

The names of the tests are currently automatically generated.
This allows to reduce the burden for documentation writers,
while keeping them fairly stable for bisection. This is an
improvement over the `rustdoc`-generated names, which include
the line number; but ideally we would like to get `rustdoc` to
provide the Rust item path and a number (for multiple examples
in a single documented Rust item).

In order for developers to easily see from which original line
a failed doctests came from, a KTAP diagnostic line is printed
to the log, containing the location (file and line) of the
original test (i.e. instead of the location in the generated
Rust file):

# rust_doctest_kernel_types_rs_2.location: rust/kernel/types.rs:150

This line follows the syntax for declaring test metadata in the
proposed KTAP v2 spec [1], which may be used for the proposed
KUnit test attributes API [2]. Thus hopefully this will make
migration easier later on (suggested by David [3]).

The original line in that test attribute is figured out by
providing an anchor (suggested by Boqun [4]). The original file
is found by walking the filesystem, checking directory prefixes
to reduce the amount of combinations to check, and it is only
done once per file. Ambiguities are detected and reported.

A notable difference from KUnit C tests is that the Rust tests
appear to assert using the usual `assert!` and `assert_eq!`
macros from the Rust standard library (`core`). We provide
a custom version that forwards the call to KUnit instead.
Importantly, these macros do not require passing context,
unlike the KUnit C ones (i.e. `struct kunit *`). This makes
them easier to use, and readers of the documentation do not need
to care about which testing framework is used. In addition, it
may allow us to test third-party code more easily in the future.

However, a current limitation is that KUnit does not support
assertions in other tasks. Thus we presently simply print an
error to the kernel log if an assertion actually failed. This
should be revisited to properly fail the test, perhaps saving
the context somewhere else, or letting KUnit handle it.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230420205734.1288498-1-rmoar@google.com/ [1]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20230707210947.1208717-1-rmoar@google.com/ [2]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/CABVgOSkOLO-8v6kdAGpmYnZUb+LKOX0CtYCo-Bge7r_2YTuXDQ@mail.gmail.com/ [3]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/ZIps86MbJF%2FiGIzd@boqun-archlinux/ [4]
Signed-off-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
diff a66d733d Mon Jul 17 23:27:51 MDT 2023 Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org> rust: support running Rust documentation tests as KUnit ones

Rust has documentation tests: these are typically examples of
usage of any item (e.g. function, struct, module...).

They are very convenient because they are just written
alongside the documentation. For instance:

/// Sums two numbers.
///
/// ```
/// assert_eq!(mymod::f(10, 20), 30);
/// ```
pub fn f(a: i32, b: i32) -> i32 {
a + b
}

In userspace, the tests are collected and run via `rustdoc`.
Using the tool as-is would be useful already, since it allows
to compile-test most tests (thus enforcing they are kept
in sync with the code they document) and run those that do not
depend on in-kernel APIs.

However, by transforming the tests into a KUnit test suite,
they can also be run inside the kernel. Moreover, the tests
get to be compiled as other Rust kernel objects instead of
targeting userspace.

On top of that, the integration with KUnit means the Rust
support gets to reuse the existing testing facilities. For
instance, the kernel log would look like:

KTAP version 1
1..1
KTAP version 1
# Subtest: rust_doctests_kernel
1..59
# rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_0.location: rust/kernel/build_assert.rs:13
ok 1 rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_0
# rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_1.location: rust/kernel/build_assert.rs:56
ok 2 rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_1
# rust_doctest_kernel_init_rs_0.location: rust/kernel/init.rs:122
ok 3 rust_doctest_kernel_init_rs_0
...
# rust_doctest_kernel_types_rs_2.location: rust/kernel/types.rs:150
ok 59 rust_doctest_kernel_types_rs_2
# rust_doctests_kernel: pass:59 fail:0 skip:0 total:59
# Totals: pass:59 fail:0 skip:0 total:59
ok 1 rust_doctests_kernel

Therefore, add support for running Rust documentation tests
in KUnit. Some other notes about the current implementation
and support follow.

The transformation is performed by a couple scripts written
as Rust hostprogs.

Tests using the `?` operator are also supported as usual, e.g.:

/// ```
/// # use kernel::{spawn_work_item, workqueue};
/// spawn_work_item!(workqueue::system(), || pr_info!("x"))?;
/// # Ok::<(), Error>(())
/// ```

The tests are also compiled with Clippy under `CLIPPY=1`, just
like normal code, thus also benefitting from extra linting.

The names of the tests are currently automatically generated.
This allows to reduce the burden for documentation writers,
while keeping them fairly stable for bisection. This is an
improvement over the `rustdoc`-generated names, which include
the line number; but ideally we would like to get `rustdoc` to
provide the Rust item path and a number (for multiple examples
in a single documented Rust item).

In order for developers to easily see from which original line
a failed doctests came from, a KTAP diagnostic line is printed
to the log, containing the location (file and line) of the
original test (i.e. instead of the location in the generated
Rust file):

# rust_doctest_kernel_types_rs_2.location: rust/kernel/types.rs:150

This line follows the syntax for declaring test metadata in the
proposed KTAP v2 spec [1], which may be used for the proposed
KUnit test attributes API [2]. Thus hopefully this will make
migration easier later on (suggested by David [3]).

The original line in that test attribute is figured out by
providing an anchor (suggested by Boqun [4]). The original file
is found by walking the filesystem, checking directory prefixes
to reduce the amount of combinations to check, and it is only
done once per file. Ambiguities are detected and reported.

A notable difference from KUnit C tests is that the Rust tests
appear to assert using the usual `assert!` and `assert_eq!`
macros from the Rust standard library (`core`). We provide
a custom version that forwards the call to KUnit instead.
Importantly, these macros do not require passing context,
unlike the KUnit C ones (i.e. `struct kunit *`). This makes
them easier to use, and readers of the documentation do not need
to care about which testing framework is used. In addition, it
may allow us to test third-party code more easily in the future.

However, a current limitation is that KUnit does not support
assertions in other tasks. Thus we presently simply print an
error to the kernel log if an assertion actually failed. This
should be revisited to properly fail the test, perhaps saving
the context somewhere else, or letting KUnit handle it.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230420205734.1288498-1-rmoar@google.com/ [1]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20230707210947.1208717-1-rmoar@google.com/ [2]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/CABVgOSkOLO-8v6kdAGpmYnZUb+LKOX0CtYCo-Bge7r_2YTuXDQ@mail.gmail.com/ [3]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/ZIps86MbJF%2FiGIzd@boqun-archlinux/ [4]
Signed-off-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
diff a66d733d Mon Jul 17 23:27:51 MDT 2023 Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org> rust: support running Rust documentation tests as KUnit ones

Rust has documentation tests: these are typically examples of
usage of any item (e.g. function, struct, module...).

They are very convenient because they are just written
alongside the documentation. For instance:

/// Sums two numbers.
///
/// ```
/// assert_eq!(mymod::f(10, 20), 30);
/// ```
pub fn f(a: i32, b: i32) -> i32 {
a + b
}

In userspace, the tests are collected and run via `rustdoc`.
Using the tool as-is would be useful already, since it allows
to compile-test most tests (thus enforcing they are kept
in sync with the code they document) and run those that do not
depend on in-kernel APIs.

However, by transforming the tests into a KUnit test suite,
they can also be run inside the kernel. Moreover, the tests
get to be compiled as other Rust kernel objects instead of
targeting userspace.

On top of that, the integration with KUnit means the Rust
support gets to reuse the existing testing facilities. For
instance, the kernel log would look like:

KTAP version 1
1..1
KTAP version 1
# Subtest: rust_doctests_kernel
1..59
# rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_0.location: rust/kernel/build_assert.rs:13
ok 1 rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_0
# rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_1.location: rust/kernel/build_assert.rs:56
ok 2 rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_1
# rust_doctest_kernel_init_rs_0.location: rust/kernel/init.rs:122
ok 3 rust_doctest_kernel_init_rs_0
...
# rust_doctest_kernel_types_rs_2.location: rust/kernel/types.rs:150
ok 59 rust_doctest_kernel_types_rs_2
# rust_doctests_kernel: pass:59 fail:0 skip:0 total:59
# Totals: pass:59 fail:0 skip:0 total:59
ok 1 rust_doctests_kernel

Therefore, add support for running Rust documentation tests
in KUnit. Some other notes about the current implementation
and support follow.

The transformation is performed by a couple scripts written
as Rust hostprogs.

Tests using the `?` operator are also supported as usual, e.g.:

/// ```
/// # use kernel::{spawn_work_item, workqueue};
/// spawn_work_item!(workqueue::system(), || pr_info!("x"))?;
/// # Ok::<(), Error>(())
/// ```

The tests are also compiled with Clippy under `CLIPPY=1`, just
like normal code, thus also benefitting from extra linting.

The names of the tests are currently automatically generated.
This allows to reduce the burden for documentation writers,
while keeping them fairly stable for bisection. This is an
improvement over the `rustdoc`-generated names, which include
the line number; but ideally we would like to get `rustdoc` to
provide the Rust item path and a number (for multiple examples
in a single documented Rust item).

In order for developers to easily see from which original line
a failed doctests came from, a KTAP diagnostic line is printed
to the log, containing the location (file and line) of the
original test (i.e. instead of the location in the generated
Rust file):

# rust_doctest_kernel_types_rs_2.location: rust/kernel/types.rs:150

This line follows the syntax for declaring test metadata in the
proposed KTAP v2 spec [1], which may be used for the proposed
KUnit test attributes API [2]. Thus hopefully this will make
migration easier later on (suggested by David [3]).

The original line in that test attribute is figured out by
providing an anchor (suggested by Boqun [4]). The original file
is found by walking the filesystem, checking directory prefixes
to reduce the amount of combinations to check, and it is only
done once per file. Ambiguities are detected and reported.

A notable difference from KUnit C tests is that the Rust tests
appear to assert using the usual `assert!` and `assert_eq!`
macros from the Rust standard library (`core`). We provide
a custom version that forwards the call to KUnit instead.
Importantly, these macros do not require passing context,
unlike the KUnit C ones (i.e. `struct kunit *`). This makes
them easier to use, and readers of the documentation do not need
to care about which testing framework is used. In addition, it
may allow us to test third-party code more easily in the future.

However, a current limitation is that KUnit does not support
assertions in other tasks. Thus we presently simply print an
error to the kernel log if an assertion actually failed. This
should be revisited to properly fail the test, perhaps saving
the context somewhere else, or letting KUnit handle it.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230420205734.1288498-1-rmoar@google.com/ [1]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20230707210947.1208717-1-rmoar@google.com/ [2]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/CABVgOSkOLO-8v6kdAGpmYnZUb+LKOX0CtYCo-Bge7r_2YTuXDQ@mail.gmail.com/ [3]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/ZIps86MbJF%2FiGIzd@boqun-archlinux/ [4]
Signed-off-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
/linux-master/
H A D.gitignorediff b8a9ddca Thu Dec 29 00:43:09 MST 2022 Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org> .gitignore: update the command to check tracked files being ignored

Recent git versions do not accept the noted command.

$ git ls-files -i --exclude-standard
fatal: ls-files -i must be used with either -o or -c

The -c was implied before, but we need to make it explicit since
git commit b338e9f66873 ("ls-files: error out on -i unless -o or -c
are specified").

Also, replace --exclude-standard with --exclude-per-directory=.gitignore
so that everyone will get consistent results.

git-ls-files(1) says:

--exclude-standard
Add the standard Git exclusions: .git/info/exclude, .gitignore in
each directory, and the user's global exclusion file.

We cannot predict what is locally added to .git/info/exclude or the
user's global exclusion file.

We can only manage .gitignore files committed to the repository.

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
diff dcad240c Mon Nov 14 13:59:39 MST 2022 Andrew Davis <afd@ti.com> kbuild: Cleanup DT Overlay intermediate files as appropriate

%.dtbo.o and %.dtbo.S files are used to build-in DT Overlay. They should
should not be removed by Make or the kernel will be needlessly rebuilt.

These should be removed by "clean" and ignored by git like other
intermediate files.

Reported-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Davis <afd@ti.com>
Fixes: 941214a512d8 ("kbuild: Allow DTB overlays to built into .dtbo.S files")
Tested-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Acked-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221114205939.27994-1-afd@ti.com
Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
diff 1d082773 Fri Sep 06 04:32:31 MDT 2019 Matthias Maennich <maennich@google.com> modpost: add support for generating namespace dependencies

This patch adds an option to modpost to generate a <module>.ns_deps file
per module, containing the namespace dependencies for that module.

E.g. if the linked module my-module.ko would depend on the symbol
myfunc.MY_NS in the namespace MY_NS, the my-module.ns_deps file created
by modpost would contain the entry MY_NS to express the namespace
dependency of my-module imposed by using the symbol myfunc.

These files can subsequently be used by static analysis tools (like
coccinelle scripts) to address issues with missing namespace imports. A
later patch of this series will introduce such a script 'nsdeps' and a
corresponding make target to automatically add missing
MODULE_IMPORT_NS() definitions to the module's sources. For that it uses
the information provided in the generated .ns_deps files.

Co-developed-by: Martijn Coenen <maco@android.com>
Signed-off-by: Martijn Coenen <maco@android.com>
Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Matthias Maennich <maennich@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Jessica Yu <jeyu@kernel.org>
diff 898490c0 Mon Apr 29 10:11:14 MDT 2019 Alexey Gladkov <gladkov.alexey@gmail.com> moduleparam: Save information about built-in modules in separate file

Problem:

When a kernel module is compiled as a separate module, some important
information about the kernel module is available via .modinfo section of
the module. In contrast, when the kernel module is compiled into the
kernel, that information is not available.

Information about built-in modules is necessary in the following cases:

1. When it is necessary to find out what additional parameters can be
passed to the kernel at boot time.

2. When you need to know which module names and their aliases are in
the kernel. This is very useful for creating an initrd image.

Proposal:

The proposed patch does not remove .modinfo section with module
information from the vmlinux at the build time and saves it into a
separate file after kernel linking. So, the kernel does not increase in
size and no additional information remains in it. Information is stored
in the same format as in the separate modules (null-terminated string
array). Because the .modinfo section is already exported with a separate
modules, we are not creating a new API.

It can be easily read in the userspace:

$ tr '\0' '\n' < modules.builtin.modinfo
ext4.softdep=pre: crc32c
ext4.license=GPL
ext4.description=Fourth Extended Filesystem
ext4.author=Remy Card, Stephen Tweedie, Andrew Morton, Andreas Dilger, Theodore Ts'o and others
ext4.alias=fs-ext4
ext4.alias=ext3
ext4.alias=fs-ext3
ext4.alias=ext2
ext4.alias=fs-ext2
md_mod.alias=block-major-9-*
md_mod.alias=md
md_mod.description=MD RAID framework
md_mod.license=GPL
md_mod.parmtype=create_on_open:bool
md_mod.parmtype=start_dirty_degraded:int
...

Co-Developed-by: Gleb Fotengauer-Malinovskiy <glebfm@altlinux.org>
Signed-off-by: Gleb Fotengauer-Malinovskiy <glebfm@altlinux.org>
Signed-off-by: Alexey Gladkov <gladkov.alexey@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Jessica Yu <jeyu@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
diff 1e35663e Mon Apr 29 09:17:53 MDT 2019 Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> .gitignore: add leading and trailing slashes to generated directories

Clarify these directory paths are relative to the top of the source
tree.

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
diff d682026d Mon Feb 12 06:45:42 MST 2018 Zhu Lingshan <lszhu@suse.com> .gitignore: ignore ASN.1 auto generated files

when build kernel with default configure, files:

generatenet/ipv4/netfilter/nf_nat_snmp_basic-asn1.c
net/ipv4/netfilter/nf_nat_snmp_basic-asn1.h

will be automatically generated by ASN.1 compiler, so
No need to track them in git, it's better to ignore them.

Signed-off-by: Zhu Lingshan <lszhu@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>
diff d682026d Mon Feb 12 06:45:42 MST 2018 Zhu Lingshan <lszhu@suse.com> .gitignore: ignore ASN.1 auto generated files

when build kernel with default configure, files:

generatenet/ipv4/netfilter/nf_nat_snmp_basic-asn1.c
net/ipv4/netfilter/nf_nat_snmp_basic-asn1.h

will be automatically generated by ASN.1 compiler, so
No need to track them in git, it's better to ignore them.

Signed-off-by: Zhu Lingshan <lszhu@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>
diff f2ac5e78 Wed Jun 10 15:21:47 MDT 2009 Jani Nikula <ext-jani.1.nikula@nokia.com> gitignore: Add GNU GLOBAL files to top .gitignore

Ignore GPATH, GRTAGS, GSYMS, and GTAGS generated by GNU GLOBAL.

Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <ext-jani.1.nikula@nokia.com>
Signed-off-by: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
diff f2ac5e78 Wed Jun 10 15:21:47 MDT 2009 Jani Nikula <ext-jani.1.nikula@nokia.com> gitignore: Add GNU GLOBAL files to top .gitignore

Ignore GPATH, GRTAGS, GSYMS, and GTAGS generated by GNU GLOBAL.

Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <ext-jani.1.nikula@nokia.com>
Signed-off-by: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
diff 1f5d3a6b Fri May 02 05:10:08 MDT 2008 S.Çağlar Onur <caglar@pardus.org.tr> Remove *.rej pattern from .gitignore

With commit 3f1b0e1f287547903f11fa1e6de7d2765597766e ".gitignore update"
Linus's current git tree starts to ignore any "*.rej" files.
So "git status" no longer shows these files, but the ones who works with
quilt patchsets, this not makes life easier as expected.
Because sometimes a work flow (at least for me) requires
"quilt push -f" followed by "git status" to see unresolved merge
conflicts, work on these conflicts to correct them and finalize
the patch with "quilt refresh".

And if there are some "*.rej" files exists in tree, for whatever
reason, this means something goes really wrong there and i think
this situation not deserves to be ignored.

Signed-off-by: S.Çağlar Onur <caglar@pardus.org.tr>
Signed-off-by: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>

Completed in 363 milliseconds