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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <8c693b9f-43ec-8982-825c-cabfd61b659d@deltatee.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 May 2019 18:26:11 -0600
From:   Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
To:     Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
Cc:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Tim.Bird@...y.com,
        knut.omang@...cle.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        keescook@...gle.com, kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com,
        mcgrof@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org, sboyd@...nel.org,
        shuah@...nel.org, 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,
        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,
        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 2019-05-14 6:14 p.m., Frank Rowand wrote:
> The high level issue is to provide reviewers with enough context to be
> able to evaluate the patch series.  That is probably not very obvious
> at this point in the thread.  At this point I was responding to Logan's
> response to me that I should be reading Documentation to get a better
> description of KUnit features.  I _think_ that Logan thought that I
> did not understand KUnit features and was trying to be helpful by
> pointing out where I could get more information.  If so, he was missing
> my intended point had been that patch 0 should provide more information
> to justify adding this feature.

Honestly, I lost track of wait exactly your point was. And, in my
opinion, Brendan has provided over and above the information required to
justify Kunit's inclusion.

> One thing that has become very apparent in the discussion of this patch
> series is that some people do not understand that kselftest includes
> in-kernel tests, not just userspace tests.  As such, KUnit is an
> additional implementation of "the same feature".  (One can debate
> exactly which in-kernel test features kselftest and KUnit provide,
> and how much overlap exists or does not exist.  So don't take "the
> same feature" as my final opinion of how much overlap exists.)  So
> that is a key element to be noted and explained.

>From my perspective, once we were actually pointed to the in-kernel
kselftest code and took a look at it, it was clear there was no
over-arching framework to them and that Kunit could be used to
significantly improve those tests with a common structure. Based on my
reading of the thread, Ted came to the same conclusion.

I don't think we should block this feature from being merged, and for
future work, someone can update the in-kernel kselftests to use the new
framework.

Logan