From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C8C53BCD3A; Wed, 14 Oct 2026 17:03:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791997431; cv=none; b=LzvZpBHQzpzSfUm/yvbZPL6ma1BW8T6RrZeIhCuCMwuJBw4zZBllUEBxXT0yG73aBAuapTckZFI7ZVJlN3Y+1R3Pq8VGHWYbHETvarl7Z5gTid/PWkq9uFv4/iPO5L5J3wHOvtV0ns4Nisn1ZcJhacClOepfoUskbECJFaXh0sE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791997431; c=relaxed/simple; bh=a+z0R0dnskkkMLiz3io7c7v0PhV4mW3Rh8TxN3dJZVI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=gM64kjmPxapLyQir0qd3G86ynZbC3slxcaJ1k/FCHBr/Jg5vHWt5PDEQxWg/oLUAj4X6C4ACiyD0u931NUNwEvArLIkWjvmhcitCyF7kI4MwUosltWIjqLfkcJKd30sYGZxSnWgv718fQrxfA6UzNqep2EpXG8xTKxRDdJTfLIY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=RJv5tQwj; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="RJv5tQwj" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with UTF8SMTPSA id 32D051F000C4; Wed, 14 Oct 2026 17:03:49 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1791997429; bh=WAwi+KjahJKmuK2rJk9ZiJGGGo4UHtIg6YDYM49ohMk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=RJv5tQwjYdJIHspWjA2Ny6qItzQ7eUYnyxhggzoXKFj6135/2H04BtRe7TKOWnZjS YP4rNZ0LZVaO9NIVl0Hssv5yWZUeqVJXk/J+sTmXKlKgO3QmLz9sXGhSOdGqdlUlRg y8l9YOUJ5cfxAos5YTqNFKyI0WNrsMlfQJ/U2r8LoHJrmyENhScsySDWK/buwzRfGJ osHGutEmxMKh+ljR6VFCxlS4xlpu4uEqk3ZZBIVx3d/Kfa0xaqI/SjmBxwpvCSt3jM N2Q6IxUim0BjZypqrrdkNPIFVR3Zm9kQuhww6lsgd7mOuht3DmJHreLWkZcq9aXou/ SHGDLmlQh+mxA== Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2026 20:03:45 +0300 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: Eric Biggers Cc: keyrings@vger.kernel.org, Brendan Higgins , David Gow , Andrew Morton , Rae Moar , Ryota Sakamoto , Kuan-Wei Chiu , Andy Shevchenko , Pasha Tatashin , Kir Chou , Petr Mladek , Dmitry Antipov , Guan-Chun Wu <409411716@gms.tku.edu.tw>, open list , "open list:KERNEL UNIT TESTING FRAMEWORK (KUnit)" , "open list:KERNEL UNIT TESTING FRAMEWORK (KUnit)" , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH] lib/tests: kunit for associative array Message-ID: References: <20261014160144.1835860-1-jarkko@kernel.org> <20261014163550.GA327771@quark> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Wed, Oct 14, 2026 at 07:56:32PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2026 at 06:35:50PM +0200, Eric Biggers wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2026 at 07:01:38PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > This is a kunit test for lib/assoc_array.c, which maintains a shadow model > > > across assoc_array operations, and checks its integrity after every > > > operation. > > > > > > I wrote a draft version so that I could properly test 'assoc-array-fixes' > > > tag at Linus' tree, and spent today rewriting a new more polished version > > > with as good description as I could possibly could on how the seeded test > > > keys were cherry-picked. Along the way I also tweaked the numbers to be > > > a bit less messier set than in my original version. > > > > > > The transcripts that follow were executed with this command-line: > > > > > > ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --raw_output assoc_array > > > > > > With 'assoc-array-fixes' commits and its subsequent tag iterations all > > > eight tests pass, and without them all of them fail. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen > > > > Would this effort (and Linus's effort) be better spent on converting > > keyrings to use an rhashtable? > > It did cross my mind when I reviewed and tested those fixes but you > are asking something that I would need at least a few hours to have > any opinion. > > We do bugs and QA to the end-of-life-cycle. We neither can predict > exact time how such major overhaul would take, if we even want to > do it. I don't know. > > My brain is on this and I'm really bad at multitasking :-) If migration was done probably two-phase approach is what should sought after. I.e. keep the API and change the internals. After that it is time for re-consideration because from that point there are multiple (API) paths forward. Br, Jarkko