[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANpmjNOgADdGqze9ZA-o8cb6=isYfE3tEBf1HhwtwJkFJqNe=w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2022 11:22:43 +0100
From: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
To: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
Cc: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
kasan-dev@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/hw_breakpoint: test: Skip the test if dependencies unmet
Hi David, Daniel,
On Wed, 26 Oct 2022 at 20:31, Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com> wrote:
[...]
> > - return -EINVAL;
> > + kunit_skip(test, "not enough cpus");
>
> The only minor nit I have is that I'd personally prefer something like
> kunit_skip(test, "need >=2 cpus");
> since that makes it clearer
> a) that we must only have 1 CPU by default
> b) roughly how one might address this.
>
> Note: b) is a bit more complicated than I would like. The final
> command is something like
> $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --arch x86_64 --qemu_args='-smp
> 2' --kconfig_add='CONFIG_SMP=y'
>
> But that's orthogonal to this patch.
Was there going to be a v2 to address (a), or is this patch ready to
be picked up?
I assume (unless I hear otherwise), this patch shall also go through -tip?
Thanks,
-- Marco
Powered by blists - more mailing lists