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