linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/17] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework

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 linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ea36c3d6-8c13-2186-16f3-596d834aeebe@deltatee.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 May 2019 21:18:40 -0600
From:   Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
To:     Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        frowand.list@...il.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        keescook@...gle.com, kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com,
        mcgrof@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org, sboyd@...nel.org,
        shuah@...nel.org
Cc:     devicetree@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org, linux-um@...ts.infradead.org,
        Alexander.Levin@...rosoft.com, Tim.Bird@...y.com,
        amir73il@...il.com, dan.carpenter@...cle.com,
        dan.j.williams@...el.com, daniel@...ll.ch, jdike@...toit.com,
        joel@....id.au, julia.lawall@...6.fr, khilman@...libre.com,
        knut.omang@...cle.com, mpe@...erman.id.au, pmladek@...e.com,
        richard@....at, rientjes@...gle.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        wfg@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/17] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit
 testing framework



On 2019-05-01 5:01 p.m., Brendan Higgins wrote:
> ## TLDR
> 
> I rebased the last patchset on 5.1-rc7 in hopes that we can get this in
> 5.2.
> 

As I said on the last posting, I like this and would like to see it move
forward. I still have the same concerns over the downsides of using UML
(ie. not being able to compile large swaths of the tree due to features
that don't exist in that arch) but these are concerns for later.

I'd prefer to see the unnecessary indirection that I pointed out in
patch 8 cleaned up but, besides that, the code looks good to me.

Reviewed-by: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>

Thanks!

Logan