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
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 21 Mar 2019 18:47:35 -0700
From:   Frank Rowand <>
To:     Brendan Higgins <>
Cc:     Greg KH <>,
        Kees Cook <>,
        Luis Chamberlain <>,,
        Joel Stanley <>,
        Michael Ellerman <>,
        Joe Perches <>,,
        Steven Rostedt <>,
        "Bird, Timothy" <>,
        Kevin Hilman <>,
        Julia Lawall <>,,,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        Jeff Dike <>,
        Richard Weinberger <>,, Daniel Vetter <>,
        dri-devel <>,
        Rob Herring <>,
        Dan Williams <>,
        linux-nvdimm <>,
        Kieran Bingham <>,
        Knut Omang <>,
        Frank Rowand <>
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 <> 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