From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Boyd Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 12/18] kunit: test: add tests for KUnit managed resources Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 10:07:12 -0700 Message-ID: <20190813170712.C89CA20679@mail.kernel.org> References: <20190812182421.141150-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> <20190812182421.141150-13-brendanhiggins@google.com> <20190813043140.67FF320644@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: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-13 00:57:33) > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 9:31 PM Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > > BTW, maybe kunit allocation APIs should > > fail the test if they fail to allocate in general. Unless we're unit > > testing failure to allocate problems. >=20 > Yeah, I thought about that. I wasn't sure how people would feel about > it, and I thought it would be a pain to tease out all the issues > arising from aborting in different contexts when someone might not > expect it. >=20 > I am thinking later we can have kunit_kmalloc_or_abort variants? And > then we can punt this issue to a later time? >=20 Sure. Sounds good.