lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 18:47:35 -0700 From: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com> To: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com> Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>, Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>, shuah@...nel.org, Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, brakmo@...com, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, "Bird, Timothy" <Tim.Bird@...y.com>, Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, linux-um@...ts.infradead.org, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>, Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com>, Knut Omang <knut.omang@...cle.com>, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com> Subject: Re: [RFC v3 18/19] of: unittest: split out a couple of test cases from unittest On 3/21/19 6:30 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote: > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 5:22 PM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com> wrote: >> >> On 2/27/19 7:52 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote: < snip > but thanks for the comments in the snipped section. >> >> Thanks for leaving 18/19 and 19/19 off in v4. > > Sure, no problem. It was pretty clear that it was a waste of both of > our times to continue discussing those at this juncture. :-) > > Do you still want me to try to convert the DT not-exactly-unittest to > KUnit? I would kind of prefer (I don't feel *super* strongly about the > matter) we don't call it that since I was intending for it to be the > flagship initial example, but I certainly don't mind trying to clean > this patch up to get it up to snuff. It's really just a question of > whether it is worth it to you. In the long term, if KUnit is adopted by the kernel, then I think it probably makes sense for devicetree unittest to convert from using our own unittest() function to report an individual test pass/fail to instead use something like KUNIT_EXPECT_*() to provide more consistent test messages to test frameworks. That is assuming KUNIT_EXPECT_*() provides comparable functionality. I still have not looked into that question since the converted tests (patch 15/17 in v4) still does not execute without throwing internal errors. If that conversion occurred, I would also avoid the ASSERTs. > > < snip > > > Cheers! >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists