From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on archive.lwn.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.2 required=5.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by archive.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61ECC7D2F0 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 20:51:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730258AbfGOUvD (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Jul 2019 16:51:03 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:59372 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729640AbfGOUvC (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Jul 2019 16:51:02 -0400 Received: from kernel.org (unknown [104.132.0.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AB55B2145D; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 20:51:01 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1563223861; bh=6m3JRkZe4W2eR9x3TEB42iTGm06AKnl0iKV7troXRVI=; h=In-Reply-To:References:From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=EwqhqpJU1AH9O3azv7tLQPtK6CGIx5+N25Vfxpts0j2Zu9LzI8K3EVF6FF7FMlJqe HqZdyATMk1hx4CfnLLeNhVn8jZBCw/KN0Ip/RXuDu+/ZJV8+T7LRYZFf0rRh6wit2r FZCr9nMrPp9Qn2lqNejmYhOwnPlNfDt+4lLfsG/0= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In-Reply-To: References: <20190712081744.87097-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> <20190712081744.87097-3-brendanhiggins@google.com> <20190715202425.CE64C20665@mail.kernel.org> From: Stephen Boyd To: Brendan Higgins Cc: Frank Rowand , Greg KH , Josh Poimboeuf , Kees Cook , Kieran Bingham , Luis Chamberlain , Peter Zijlstra , Rob Herring , shuah , Theodore Ts'o , Masahiro Yamada , devicetree , dri-devel , kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, "open list:DOCUMENTATION" , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kbuild , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" , linux-nvdimm , linux-um@lists.infradead.org, Sasha Levin , "Bird, Timothy" , Amir Goldstein , Dan Carpenter , Daniel Vetter , Jeff Dike , Joel Stanley , Julia Lawall , Kevin Hilman , Knut Omang , Logan Gunthorpe , Michael Ellerman , Petr Mladek , Randy Dunlap , Richard Weinberger , David Rientjes , Steven Rostedt , wfg@linux.intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 02/18] kunit: test: add test resource management API User-Agent: alot/0.8.1 Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 13:51:00 -0700 Message-Id: <20190715205101.AB55B2145D@mail.kernel.org> Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-07-15 13:30:22) > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 1:24 PM Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > > Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-07-12 01:17:28) > > > diff --git a/kunit/test.c b/kunit/test.c > > > index 571e4c65deb5c..f165c9d8e10b0 100644 >=20 > > One solution would be to piggyback on all the existing devres allocation > > logic we already have and make each struct kunit a device that we pass > > into the devres functions. A far simpler solution would be to just > > copy/paste what devres does and use a spinlock and an allocation > > function that takes GFP flags. >=20 > Yeah, that's what I did originally, but I thought from the discussion > on patch 01 that you thought a spinlock was overkill for struct kunit. > I take it you only meant in that initial patch? Correct. I was only talking about the success bit in there. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E865212B5EE4 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 13:53:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20190712081744.87097-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> <20190712081744.87097-3-brendanhiggins@google.com> <20190715202425.CE64C20665@mail.kernel.org> From: Stephen Boyd Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 02/18] kunit: test: add test resource management API Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 13:51:00 -0700 Message-Id: <20190715205101.AB55B2145D@mail.kernel.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: linux-nvdimm-bounces@lists.01.org Sender: "Linux-nvdimm" To: Brendan Higgins Cc: Petr Mladek , "open list:DOCUMENTATION" , Peter Zijlstra , Amir Goldstein , dri-devel , Sasha Levin , Masahiro Yamada , Michael Ellerman , "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" , shuah , Rob Herring , linux-nvdimm , Frank Rowand , Knut Omang , Kieran Bingham , wfg@linux.intel.com, Joel Stanley , David Rientjes , Jeff Dike , Dan Carpenter , devicetree , linux-kbuild , "Bird, Timothy , linux-um@lists.infradead.org, Steven Rostedt" , Julia Lawall , Josh Poimboeuf , kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, Theodore Ts'o , Richard Weinberger , Greg KH , Randy Dunlap , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Luis Chamberlain , Daniel Vetter , Kees Cook , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Kevin Hilman List-ID: Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-07-15 13:30:22) > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 1:24 PM Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > > Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-07-12 01:17:28) > > > diff --git a/kunit/test.c b/kunit/test.c > > > index 571e4c65deb5c..f165c9d8e10b0 100644 > > > One solution would be to piggyback on all the existing devres allocation > > logic we already have and make each struct kunit a device that we pass > > into the devres functions. A far simpler solution would be to just > > copy/paste what devres does and use a spinlock and an allocation > > function that takes GFP flags. > > Yeah, that's what I did originally, but I thought from the discussion > on patch 01 that you thought a spinlock was overkill for struct kunit. > I take it you only meant in that initial patch? Correct. I was only talking about the success bit in there. _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1hn7w6-0002kp-2X for linux-um@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 20:51:03 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20190712081744.87097-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> <20190712081744.87097-3-brendanhiggins@google.com> <20190715202425.CE64C20665@mail.kernel.org> From: Stephen Boyd Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 02/18] kunit: test: add test resource management API Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 13:51:00 -0700 Message-Id: <20190715205101.AB55B2145D@mail.kernel.org> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-um" Errors-To: linux-um-bounces+geert=linux-m68k.org@lists.infradead.org To: Brendan Higgins Cc: Petr Mladek , "open list:DOCUMENTATION" , Peter Zijlstra , Amir Goldstein , dri-devel , Sasha Levin , Masahiro Yamada , Michael Ellerman , "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" , shuah , Rob Herring , linux-nvdimm , Frank Rowand , Knut Omang , Kieran Bingham , wfg@linux.intel.com, Joel Stanley , David Rientjes , Jeff Dike , Dan Carpenter , devicetree , linux-kbuild , "Bird, Timothy , linux-um@lists.infradead.org, Steven Rostedt" , Julia Lawall , Josh Poimboeuf , kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, Theodore Ts'o , Richard Weinberger , Greg KH , Randy Dunlap , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Luis Chamberlain , Daniel Vetter , Kees Cook , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Logan Gunthorpe , Kevin Hilman Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-07-15 13:30:22) > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 1:24 PM Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > > Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-07-12 01:17:28) > > > diff --git a/kunit/test.c b/kunit/test.c > > > index 571e4c65deb5c..f165c9d8e10b0 100644 > > > One solution would be to piggyback on all the existing devres allocation > > logic we already have and make each struct kunit a device that we pass > > into the devres functions. A far simpler solution would be to just > > copy/paste what devres does and use a spinlock and an allocation > > function that takes GFP flags. > > Yeah, that's what I did originally, but I thought from the discussion > on patch 01 that you thought a spinlock was overkill for struct kunit. > I take it you only meant in that initial patch? Correct. I was only talking about the success bit in there. _______________________________________________ linux-um mailing list linux-um@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Boyd Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 02/18] kunit: test: add test resource management API Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 13:51:00 -0700 Message-ID: <20190715205101.AB55B2145D@mail.kernel.org> References: <20190712081744.87097-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> <20190712081744.87097-3-brendanhiggins@google.com> <20190715202425.CE64C20665@mail.kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Brendan Higgins Cc: Frank Rowand , Greg KH , Josh Poimboeuf , Kees Cook , Kieran Bingham , Luis Chamberlain , Peter Zijlstra , Rob Herring , shuah , Theodore Ts'o , Masahiro Yamada , devicetree , dri-devel , kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, "open list:DOCUMENTATION" , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kbuild , Linux Kernel Mailing List , open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-07-15 13:30:22) > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 1:24 PM Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > > Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-07-12 01:17:28) > > > diff --git a/kunit/test.c b/kunit/test.c > > > index 571e4c65deb5c..f165c9d8e10b0 100644 >=20 > > One solution would be to piggyback on all the existing devres allocation > > logic we already have and make each struct kunit a device that we pass > > into the devres functions. A far simpler solution would be to just > > copy/paste what devres does and use a spinlock and an allocation > > function that takes GFP flags. >=20 > Yeah, that's what I did originally, but I thought from the discussion > on patch 01 that you thought a spinlock was overkill for struct kunit. > I take it you only meant in that initial patch? Correct. I was only talking about the success bit in there.