[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALAqxLV1b_RzAGrp1ap3J42jRUBD3HJTc5RtQiu731a70oAtaw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 09:39:30 -0800
From: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To: Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/19] Add timekeeping tests to kernel selftest
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com> wrote:
> On 03/02/2015 10:14 AM, John Stultz wrote:
>> Other then that, I've got a few compiler warning cleanup and a fix for
>> CROSS_COMPILE, so I'll resbumit the set tomorrow or later this week.
>> So let me know if there are any other changes you'd like and I'll roll
>> those in.
>
> Please use kselftest.h reporting mechanism for new tests. posix_timers.c
> is updated to use it and it would make sense use it for new tests as
> well.
Hrm.. I'm not objecting to this, but one thing I've tried to do with
my test suite is minimize any sort of test-infrastructure
dependencies, so as much as possible, single test files can be plucked
out, built and run by themselves. Not sure if this concern is
something I'm just crazy about or if others see value in this as well.
:)
The kselftest.h calls are simple enough, so I'll try to integrate the
changes in and see if there's a nice way to keep the test files
functioning externally too.
thanks
-john
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists