From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu ([18.9.28.11] helo=outgoing.mit.edu) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.2 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1iGX2O-000331-Oz for linux-um@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 04 Oct 2019 23:31:06 +0000 Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2019 19:29:55 -0400 From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" Subject: Re: [PATCH v18 00/19] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework Message-ID: <20191004232955.GC12012@mit.edu> References: <20190923090249.127984-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> <20191004213812.GA24644@mit.edu> <56e2e1a7-f8fe-765b-8452-1710b41895bf@kernel.org> <20191004222714.GA107737@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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 , Brendan Higgins , 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, 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 04:47:09PM -0600, shuah wrote: > > 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. > > The idea is that the new development will happen based on kunit in > linux-kselftest next. It will work just fine. As we accepts patches, > they will go on top of kunit that is in linux-next now. I don't see how this would work. If I add unit tests to ext4, they would be in fs/ext4. And to the extent that I need to add test mocks to allow the unit tests to work, they will involve changes to existing files in fs/ext4. I can't put them in the ext4.git tree without pulling in the kunit changes into the ext4 git tree. And if they ext4 unit tests land in the kunit tree, it would be a receipe for large numbers of merge conflicts. - Ted _______________________________________________ linux-um mailing list linux-um@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um