From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753741AbbCaQYy (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 31 Mar 2015 12:24:54 -0400
Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:44176 "EHLO mga11.intel.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751725AbbCaQYu (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 31 Mar 2015 12:24:50 -0400
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,502,1422950400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="706811854"
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.8.150116
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 09:24:18 -0700
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] selftest: Add futex functional tests
From: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>
To: Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
CC: <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
        greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        <fengguang.wu@intel.com>, Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Message-ID: <D14017F7.C46F0%dvhart@linux.intel.com>
Thread-Topic: [GIT PULL] selftest: Add futex functional tests
References: <cover.1427493640.git.dvhart@linux.intel.com>
 <551ABE00.9050003@osg.samsung.com>
In-Reply-To: <551ABE00.9050003@osg.samsung.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 3/31/15, 8:32 AM, "Shuah Khan" <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> wrote:

>Hi Daren,
>
>On 03/27/2015 04:17 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
>> Hi Shuah,
>> 
>> This series begins the process of migrating my futextest tests into
>>kselftest.
>> I've started with only the functional tests, as the performance and
>>stress may
>> not be appropriate for kselftest as they stand.
>> 
>> I cleaned up various complaints from checkpatch, but I ignored others
>>that would
>> require significant rework of the testcases, such as not using volatile
>>and not
>> creating new typedefs.
>> 
>> The patches will follow, but I'm providing a pull request for your
>>convenience
>> as well.
>
>Thanks for acting on this so quickly after we talked about it at ELC.
>Just a quick note that I am going to get to this soon once I get the
>4.1 content wrapped up. We can plan upon getting these into 4.2.

OK. Michael E. provided some feedback which I can either incorporate and
respin, or I can send as a follow-on to your -next after you merge these.
Which do you prefer?

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center