All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: pvorel at suse.cz (Petr Vorel)
Subject: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Kselftest shell (or even C) API
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 14:29:01 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190408122901.GA6493@dell5510> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1554725685.17244.61.camel@linux.ibm.com>

Hi Mimi, Shuah,
> Hi Petr, Shuah,

> On Sat, 2019-04-06 at 23:49 +0200, Petr Vorel wrote:
> > Hi,

> > this is a draft trying to define some API in order to remove some
> > redundancy from kselftest shell scripts. Existing kselftest.h already
> > defines some sort of API for C, there is none for shell.

> Shuah, when the tests were in the selftests/ima directory I was
> planning on including them in my pull request; and then they moved to
> selftests/kexec.  As they were still IMA related, I was still
> shepherding them and planned on including them in my pull request. (Is
> this Okay?  Your Review/Ack would be much appreciated.)  This patch
> set, however, introduces a set of "common" set of kselftest functions.

> Originally, you suggested deferring defining a set of "common"
> kselftests functions to prevent delaying upstreaming the tests.  With
> these patches, that time is here.  How do you want to handle this?

I agree with separation of common kselftests functions / proper API effort.
kexec tests are ready and IMHO should not be delayed with this effort.
"common functions" proposed by this patchset are more for to start a discussion
about it, what I brought doesn't help much. Proper design takes some time.

> Thanks,

> Mimi

Kind regards,
Petr

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: pvorel@suse.cz (Petr Vorel)
Subject: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Kselftest shell (or even C) API
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 14:29:01 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190408122901.GA6493@dell5510> (raw)
Message-ID: <20190408122901.1U_FVXNNn2aHdx5MDG6YcOX10joEglesVHVLoFDPmHE@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1554725685.17244.61.camel@linux.ibm.com>

Hi Mimi, Shuah,
> Hi Petr, Shuah,

> On Sat, 2019-04-06@23:49 +0200, Petr Vorel wrote:
> > Hi,

> > this is a draft trying to define some API in order to remove some
> > redundancy from kselftest shell scripts. Existing kselftest.h already
> > defines some sort of API for C, there is none for shell.

> Shuah, when the tests were in the selftests/ima directory I was
> planning on including them in my pull request; and then they moved to
> selftests/kexec.  As they were still IMA related, I was still
> shepherding them and planned on including them in my pull request. (Is
> this Okay?  Your Review/Ack would be much appreciated.)  This patch
> set, however, introduces a set of "common" set of kselftest functions.

> Originally, you suggested deferring defining a set of "common"
> kselftests functions to prevent delaying upstreaming the tests.  With
> these patches, that time is here.  How do you want to handle this?

I agree with separation of common kselftests functions / proper API effort.
kexec tests are ready and IMHO should not be delayed with this effort.
"common functions" proposed by this patchset are more for to start a discussion
about it, what I brought doesn't help much. Proper design takes some time.

> Thanks,

> Mimi

Kind regards,
Petr

  reply	other threads:[~2019-04-08 12:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-04-06 21:49 pvorel
2019-04-06 21:49 ` Petr Vorel
2019-04-06 21:49 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] selftests: Start shell API pvorel
2019-04-06 21:49   ` Petr Vorel
2019-04-08 11:06   ` zohar
2019-04-08 11:06     ` Mimi Zohar
2019-04-08 12:22     ` pvorel
2019-04-08 12:22       ` Petr Vorel
2019-04-08 11:38   ` chrubis
2019-04-08 11:38     ` Cyril Hrubis
2019-04-08 13:07     ` pvorel
2019-04-08 13:07       ` Petr Vorel
2019-04-06 21:49 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] selftest/kexec: Use kselftest " pvorel
2019-04-06 21:49   ` Petr Vorel
2019-04-08 11:29   ` zohar
2019-04-08 11:29     ` Mimi Zohar
2019-04-08 11:43 ` [RFC PATCH 0/2] Kselftest shell (or even C) API chrubis
2019-04-08 11:43   ` Cyril Hrubis
2019-04-08 13:25   ` pvorel
2019-04-08 13:25     ` Petr Vorel
2019-04-08 12:14 ` zohar
2019-04-08 12:14   ` Mimi Zohar
2019-04-08 12:29   ` pvorel [this message]
2019-04-08 12:29     ` Petr Vorel

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20190408122901.GA6493@dell5510 \
    --to=unknown@example.com \
    --subject='Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Kselftest shell (or even C) API' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.