From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf1-x444.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::444]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.2 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1iGW2m-0007Gn-G8 for linux-um@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 04 Oct 2019 22:27:25 +0000 Received: by mail-pf1-x444.google.com with SMTP id y72so4702295pfb.12 for ; Fri, 04 Oct 2019 15:27:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2019 15:27:14 -0700 From: Brendan Higgins 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-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56e2e1a7-f8fe-765b-8452-1710b41895bf@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: shuah Cc: Petr Mladek , "open list:DOCUMENTATION" , Peter Zijlstra , Amir Goldstein , dri-devel , Sasha Levin , Masahiro Yamada , Michael Ellerman , "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" , Frank Rowand , robh@kernel.org, linux-nvdimm , khilman@baylibre.com, knut.omang@oracle.com, kieran.bingham@ideasonboard.com, wfg@linux.intel.com, Joel Stanley , David Rientjes , jdike@addtoit.com, Dan Carpenter , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kbuild mailing list , Tim.Bird@sony.com, linux-um@lists.infradead.org, Steven Rostedt , Julia Lawall , Josh Poimboeuf , kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, logang@deltatee.com, "Theodore Y. Ts'o" , Richard Weinberger , Stephen Boyd , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Randy Dunlap , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Luis Chamberlain , Daniel Vetter , Kees Cook , linux-fsdevel , Linus Torvalds 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. _______________________________________________ linux-um mailing list linux-um@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um