[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALAqxLWyNiaf_Fxa76t9nA9Ea++O1Tcisq_XpH9e1yZJP1YujA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 14:36:33 -0700
From: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To: Brian Starkey <Brian.Starkey@....com>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@...aro.org>,
Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
Liam Mark <lmark@...eaurora.org>,
Pratik Patel <pratikp@...eaurora.org>,
Vincent Donnefort <Vincent.Donnefort@....com>,
Sudipto Paul <Sudipto.Paul@....com>,
"Andrew F . Davis" <afd@...com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Chenbo Feng <fengc@...gle.com>,
Alistair Strachan <astrachan@...gle.com>,
Hridya Valsaraju <hridya@...gle.com>,
"dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
nd <nd@....com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND][PATCH v8 5/5] kselftests: Add dma-heap test
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 3:12 PM Brian Starkey <Brian.Starkey@....com> wrote:
>
> I didn't see any response about using the test harness. Did you decide
> against it?
Hey! Spent a little time looking at this bit and just wanted to reply
to this point. So first, apologies, I think I missed the suggestion
earlier. That said, now that I've looked a little bit at the test
harness, and at least at this point it feels like it makes it harder
to reason with than standard c code. Maybe I need to spend a bit more
time on it, but I'm a little hesitant to swap over just yet.
I'm not particularly passionate on this point, but are you? Or was
this just a recommendation to check it out and consider it?
thanks
-john
Powered by blists - more mailing lists