From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Brendan Higgins Subject: Re: [RFC v3 18/19] of: unittest: split out a couple of test cases from unittest Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 15:15:45 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20181128193636.254378-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> <20181128193636.254378-19-brendanhiggins@google.com> <990bfc7d-dc5e-d8d3-c151-9b321ff2ac10@gmail.com> <88fe0546-7850-5bb4-9673-b1aef2dccb3e@gmail.com> <0e311e88-c4d4-e98d-1720-53a04bd526fc@gmail.com> <72cd1c5b-6f68-73ad-c8fd-f3a3268a0529@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Frank Rowand Cc: Greg KH , Kees Cook , Luis Chamberlain , shuah@kernel.org, Joel Stanley , Michael Ellerman , Joe Perches , brakmo@fb.com, Steven Rostedt , "Bird, Timothy" , Kevin Hilman , Julia Lawall , linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List , Jeff Dike , Richard Weinberger , linux-um@lists.infradead.org, Daniel Vetter , dri-devel , Rob Herring , Dan Williams List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 6:47 PM Frank Rowand wrote: > > On 3/21/19 6:30 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 5:22 PM Frank Rowand wrote: > >> > >> On 2/27/19 7:52 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote: > > < snip > but thanks for the comments in the snipped section. > > > >> > >> Thanks for leaving 18/19 and 19/19 off in v4. > > > > Sure, no problem. It was pretty clear that it was a waste of both of > > our times to continue discussing those at this juncture. :-) > > > > Do you still want me to try to convert the DT not-exactly-unittest to > > KUnit? I would kind of prefer (I don't feel *super* strongly about the > > matter) we don't call it that since I was intending for it to be the > > flagship initial example, but I certainly don't mind trying to clean > > this patch up to get it up to snuff. It's really just a question of > > whether it is worth it to you. > > In the long term, if KUnit is adopted by the kernel, then I think it > probably makes sense for devicetree unittest to convert from using > our own unittest() function to report an individual test pass/fail > to instead use something like KUNIT_EXPECT_*() to provide more > consistent test messages to test frameworks. That is assuming > KUNIT_EXPECT_*() provides comparable functionality. I still have > not looked into that question since the converted tests (patch 15/17 > in v4) still does not execute without throwing internal errors. Sounds good. > > If that conversion occurred, I would also avoid the ASSERTs. Noted.