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=-11.6 required=5.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FSL_HELO_FAKE,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=unavailable 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 A20537D91B for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 22:27:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2388689AbfJDW1Z (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Oct 2019 18:27:25 -0400 Received: from mail-pg1-f193.google.com ([209.85.215.193]:38093 "EHLO mail-pg1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2388574AbfJDW1V (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Oct 2019 18:27:21 -0400 Received: by mail-pg1-f193.google.com with SMTP id x10so4542000pgi.5 for ; Fri, 04 Oct 2019 15:27:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=sGtC9Y61I0fWewzKpxnAs5yLawr9FrkTbXzFkx6uKAk=; b=YeeGuXR/EbMstIHwMR+WBpofOCJlBn7xcT75NgBfyAZoiHg/V1PWHpO2epGkRD81Ai 4RW+gTAEC4WD2yQ2SDrd5K9D7fdDNSPo3UNYUZZ8Zf+ibkFAmTJbDVSYEarDpJ5oPg1j dg3dC2LmBlg/HcrMgqb9PfzfTOzDXYHOa+/PYROjQTT8qZENzhrzuulgnZ3jTVdd9CoS 6vHXpukys6F6ZvGyvO/MC52uvNRRW1RrRmLnirND7BrQ4tM7+hSt8ILrukDjy2Zkorp5 a2EePtRfrlsKmCyDjJa9T4B+oNHxvnazyX654xQc9H1YU9WC6Z9K9EsF5+8bMHzSZibS tMmA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=sGtC9Y61I0fWewzKpxnAs5yLawr9FrkTbXzFkx6uKAk=; b=FDhvYu/vJEmfM/vpLPoGoH88T1QzOYRNmnxBc21Td2DHylq6IvPAfHNvCSyDDe7q1Y SyVsKNTSuMzHOytcTmx8TiTrWwEdLJ97EjhgRKmnIVu5dnlWH++1HKMuOBHVQ0wgrU7N 2fve2TdVlv/Bx8TXZPWWLi/hVqy6EFo6aHAmvM/Q46bU67GepJ1ZOOD/Z38A0+gJWZHj Hsl2qYBRntR6K7fipxwh7fRUQvpzY+MwLnQzMmjS/vjSRGO3RKFvaXAKYBLPkCnRrQlp 6h5Ew+MLi+5PEwdmCVrLmH3IpiqqurJR5+Q/6HG1FIvWTCvlHc2b8jFzfBJv5C2J4ycV coWg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWMD11ptgnl93jtChEdXsZMa6l4py3SVP1iOpcuodOeul2gdT99 omBB0ugTazXci33IaKfw76GatQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz9/Um6buAfhCtRCPjLYgne6gcH8Y83qWem0TWomrvMdMPDQueWyrF35KAweIvctX7qICTVOw== X-Received: by 2002:a65:638a:: with SMTP id h10mr8380897pgv.106.1570228039982; Fri, 04 Oct 2019 15:27:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com ([2620:15c:2cb:1:e90c:8e54:c2b4:29e7]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w7sm5066788pjn.1.2019.10.04.15.27.18 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 04 Oct 2019 15:27:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2019 15:27:14 -0700 From: Brendan Higgins To: shuah Cc: Linus Torvalds , "Theodore Y. Ts'o" , Frank Rowand , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Josh Poimboeuf , Kees Cook , kieran.bingham@ideasonboard.com, Luis Chamberlain , Peter Zijlstra , robh@kernel.org, Stephen Boyd , Masahiro Yamada , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel , kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, "open list:DOCUMENTATION" , linux-fsdevel , Linux Kbuild mailing list , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" , linux-nvdimm , linux-um@lists.infradead.org, Sasha Levin , Tim.Bird@sony.com, Amir Goldstein , Dan Carpenter , Daniel Vetter , jdike@addtoit.com, Joel Stanley , Julia Lawall , khilman@baylibre.com, knut.omang@oracle.com, logang@deltatee.com, Michael Ellerman , Petr Mladek , Randy Dunlap , Richard Weinberger , David Rientjes , Steven Rostedt , wfg@linux.intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v18 00/19] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework Message-ID: <20191004222714.GA107737@google.com> References: <20190923090249.127984-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> <20191004213812.GA24644@mit.edu> <56e2e1a7-f8fe-765b-8452-1710b41895bf@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56e2e1a7-f8fe-765b-8452-1710b41895bf@kernel.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 03:59:10PM -0600, shuah wrote: > On 10/4/19 3:42 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 2:39 PM Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > > > > > > This question is primarily directed at Shuah and Linus.... > > > > > > What's the current status of the kunit series now that Brendan has > > > moved it out of the top-level kunit directory as Linus has requested? > > > > The move happened smack in the middle of merge window and landed in > linux-next towards the end of the merge window. > > > We seemed to decide to just wait for 5.5, but there is nothing that > > looks to block that. And I encouraged Shuah to find more kunit cases > > for when it _does_ get merged. > > > > Right. I communicated that to Brendan that we could work on adding more > kunit based tests which would help get more mileage on the kunit. > > > So if the kunit branch is stable, and people want to start using it > > for their unit tests, then I think that would be a good idea, and then > > during the 5.5 merge window we'll not just get the infrastructure, > > we'll get a few more users too and not just examples. I was planning on holding off on accepting more tests/changes until KUnit is in torvalds/master. As much as I would like to go around promoting it, I don't really want to promote too much complexity in a non-upstream branch before getting it upstream because I don't want to risk adding something that might cause it to get rejected again. To be clear, I can understand from your perspective why getting more tests/usage before accepting it is a good thing. The more people that play around with it, the more likely that someone will find an issue with it, and more likely that what is accepted into torvalds/master is of high quality. However, if I encourage arbitrary tests/improvements into my KUnit branch, it further diverges away from torvalds/master, and is more likely that there will be a merge conflict or issue that is not related to the core KUnit changes that will cause the whole thing to be rejected again in v5.5. I don't know. I guess we could maybe address that situation by splitting up the pull request into features and tests when we go to send it in, but that seems to invite a lot of unnecessary complexity. I actually already had some other tests/changes ready to send for review, but was holding off until the initial set of patches mad it in. Looking forward to hearing other people's thoughts.