Re: [RFC v4 00/17] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework

From: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>
To: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Cc: brakmo@fb.com, Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
	Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>,
	dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@microsoft.com>,
	linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, shuah@kernel.org,
	Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
	linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
	Knut Omang <knut.omang@oracle.com>,
	Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@ideasonboard.com>,
	wfg@linux.intel.com, Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au>,
	Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>,
	dan.carpenter@oracle.com, devicetree <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Bird," Timothy" <Tim.Bird@sony.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@google.com>," linux-um@lists.infradead.org,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v4 00/17] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 22:46:19 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4dff3b1a-7ded-7218-5325-3c397cc3c73e@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFd5g44AmF6eN-HKwHOqPiGZHNc2K_wAmWR3PkV0OX-=YNUKDw@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/19/19 10:34 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 12:02 PM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>> I have not read through the patches in any detail.  I have read some of
>> the code to try to understand the patches to the devicetree unit tests.
>> So that may limit how valid my comments below are.
> 
> No problem.
> 
>>
>> I found the code difficult to read in places where it should have been
>> much simpler to read.  Structuring the code in a pseudo object oriented
>> style meant that everywhere in a code path that I encountered a dynamic
>> function call, I had to go find where that dynamic function call was
>> initialized (and being the cautious person that I am, verify that
>> no where else was the value of that dynamic function call).  With
>> primitive vi and tags, that search would have instead just been a
>> simple key press (or at worst a few keys) if hard coded function
>> calls were done instead of dynamic function calls.  In the code paths
>> that I looked at, I did not see any case of a dynamic function being
>> anything other than the value it was originally initialized as.
>> There may be such cases, I did not read the entire patch set.  There
>> may also be cases envisioned in the architects mind of how this
>> flexibility may be of future value.  Dunno.
> 
> Yeah, a lot of it is intended to make architecture specific
> implementations and some other future work easier. Some of it is also
> for testing purposes. Admittedly some is for neither reason, but given
> the heavy usage elsewhere, I figured there was no harm since it was
> all private internal usage anyway.
> 

Increasing the cost for me (and all the other potential code readers)
to read the code is harm.

_______________________________________________
linux-um mailing list
linux-um@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um