linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] KUnit integration for Rust doctests

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: <CANiq72=7X7nooVnoS6JxXBwwFGGGJU5eNVNUu=g33-YQjR9vnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Jul 2023 12:50:39 +0200
From:   Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To:     David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Cc:     Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>,
        Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...il.com>,
        Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
        Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
        Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>,
        Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
        Andreas Hindborg <nmi@...aspace.dk>,
        kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        patches@...ts.linux.dev, Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] KUnit integration for Rust doctests

On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 10:38 AM David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> I like "location" better, personally. The attributes work is still
> ongoing, and while there's some benefit to having "file" and "line"
> separate (it could potentially simplify some implementation on the C
> side), we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

Yeah, I felt it looked a bit better, but if later on it ends up making
things too hard, then yeah, we can definitely simplify it.

> This seems to be working well on the existing cases under kunit.py
> here. I'll continue to play with it, but no worries on my end thus
> far.

Thanks for trying it out!

> Thanks: while we're still arguing a bit about exactly what the format
> of these will look like in the KUnit/KTAP attributes spec/patches,
> what you've used matches what we've been proposing so far.
>
> Let's stick with <test name>.location for now, and change it if needed
> when the attributes spec is finalised.

Sounds good.

> These are all (still) looking pretty good to me. If there are no
> objections, I'd like to take these into kselftest/kunit as-is and if
> we need to change anything (e.g. for consistency with attributes when
> they land), do that as a follow-up.
>
> Thanks again, Miguel, for all the work getting this going!

My pleasure -- and thanks for reviewing it so quickly and all your feedback!

Cheers,
Miguel