[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bf094685-3f2a-dc7b-7291-0340136b87f3@gmail.com>
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