From: brendanhiggins at google.com (Brendan Higgins) Subject: [RFC v3 17/19] of: unittest: migrate tests to run on KUnit Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 16:29:04 -0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAFd5g45GjG871ynfMADN+4zmecfARCk2ribY7MsMSc4=QkNqgQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1d72f04e-08ba-e3dd-c8c0-512946126113@gmail.com> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 2:56 PM Frank Rowand <frowand.list at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 2/12/19 5:44 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 12:56 PM Rob Herring <robh at kernel.org> wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 1:38 PM Brendan Higgins > >> <brendanhiggins at google.com> wrote: <snip> > >>> --- > >>> drivers/of/Kconfig | 1 + > >>> drivers/of/unittest.c | 1405 ++++++++++++++++++++++------------------- > >>> 2 files changed, 752 insertions(+), 654 deletions(-) > >>> > > <snip> > >>> diff --git a/drivers/of/unittest.c b/drivers/of/unittest.c > >>> index 41b49716ac75f..a5ef44730ffdb 100644 > >>> --- a/drivers/of/unittest.c > >>> +++ b/drivers/of/unittest.c <snip> > >>> + > >>> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, > >>> + of_property_match_string(np, > >>> + "phandle-list-names", > >>> + "first"), > >>> + 0); > >>> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, > >>> + of_property_match_string(np, > >>> + "phandle-list-names", > >>> + "second"), > >>> + 1); > >> > >> Fewer lines on these would be better even if we go over 80 chars. > > Agreed. unittest.c already is a greater than 80 char file in general, and > is a file that benefits from that. > Noted. > > > On the of_property_match_string(...), I have no opinion. I will do > > whatever you like best. > > > > Nevertheless, as far as the KUNIT_EXPECT_*(...), I do have an opinion: I am > > trying to establish a good, readable convention. Given an expect statement > > structured as > > ``` > > KUNIT_EXPECT_*( > > test, > > expect_arg_0, ..., expect_arg_n, > > fmt_str, fmt_arg_0, ..., fmt_arg_n) > > ``` > > where `test` is the `struct kunit` context argument, `expect_arg_{0, ..., n}` > > are the arguments the expectations is being made about (so in the above example, > > `of_property_match_string(...)` and `1`), and `fmt_*` is the optional format > > string that comes at the end of some expectations. > > > > The pattern I had been trying to promote is the following: > > > > 1) If everything fits on 1 line, do that. > > 2) If you must make a line split, prefer to keep `test` on its own line, > > `expect_arg_{0, ..., n}` should be kept together, if possible, and the format > > string should follow the conventions already most commonly used with format > > strings. > > 3) If you must split up `expect_arg_{0, ..., n}` each argument should get its > > own line and should not share a line with either `test` or any `fmt_*`. > > > > The reason I care about this so much is because expectations should be > > extremely easy to read; they are the most important part of a unit > > test because they tell you what the test is verifying. I am not > > married to the formatting I proposed above, but I want something that > > will be extremely easy to identify the arguments that the expectation > > is on. Maybe that means that I need to add some syntactic fluff to > > make it clearer, I don't know, but this is definitely something we > > need to get right, especially in the earliest examples. > > I will probably raise the ire of the kernel formatting rule makers by offering > what I think is a _much_ more readable format __for this specific case__. > In other words for drivers/of/unittest.c. > > If you can not make your mail window _very_ wide, or if this email has been > line wrapped, this example will not be clear. > > Two possible formats: > > > ### ----- version 1, as created by the patch series > > static void of_unittest_property_string(struct kunit *test) > { > const char *strings[4]; > struct device_node *np; > int rc; > > np = of_find_node_by_path("/testcase-data/phandle-tests/consumer-a"); > KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, np); > > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ( > test, > of_property_match_string(np, "phandle-list-names", "first"), > 0); > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ( > test, > of_property_match_string(np, "phandle-list-names", "second"), > 1); > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ( > test, > of_property_match_string(np, "phandle-list-names", "third"), > 2); > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG( > test, > of_property_match_string(np, "phandle-list-names", "fourth"), > -ENODATA, > "unmatched string"); > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG( > test, > of_property_match_string(np, "missing-property", "blah"), > -EINVAL, > "missing property"); > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG( > test, > of_property_match_string(np, "empty-property", "blah"), > -ENODATA, > "empty property"); > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG( > test, > of_property_match_string(np, "unterminated-string", "blah"), > -EILSEQ, > "unterminated string"); > > /* of_property_count_strings() tests */ > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, > of_property_count_strings(np, "string-property"), 1); > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, > of_property_count_strings(np, "phandle-list-names"), 3); > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG( > test, > of_property_count_strings(np, "unterminated-string"), -EILSEQ, > "unterminated string"); > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG( > test, > of_property_count_strings(np, "unterminated-string-list"), > -EILSEQ, > "unterminated string array"); > > > > > ### ----- version 2, modified to use really long lines > > static void of_unittest_property_string(struct kunit *test) > { > const char *strings[4]; > struct device_node *np; > int rc; > > np = of_find_node_by_path("/testcase-data/phandle-tests/consumer-a"); > KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, np); > > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ( test, of_property_match_string(np, "phandle-list-names", "first"), 0); > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ( test, of_property_match_string(np, "phandle-list-names", "second"), 1); > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ( test, of_property_match_string(np, "phandle-list-names", "third"), 2); > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, of_property_match_string(np, "phandle-list-names", "fourth"), -ENODATA, "unmatched string"); > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, of_property_match_string(np, "missing-property", "blah"), -EINVAL, "missing property"); > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, of_property_match_string(np, "empty-property", "blah"), -ENODATA, "empty property"); > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, of_property_match_string(np, "unterminated-string", "blah"), -EILSEQ, "unterminated string"); > > /* of_property_count_strings() tests */ > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ( test, of_property_count_strings(np, "string-property"), 1); > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ( test, of_property_count_strings(np, "phandle-list-names"), 3); > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, of_property_count_strings(np, "unterminated-string"), -EILSEQ, "unterminated string"); > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, of_property_count_strings(np, "unterminated-string-list"), -EILSEQ, "unterminated string array"); > > > ------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- > ^ ^ ^ > | | | > | | | > mostly boilerplate what is being tested expected result, error message > (can vary in relop > and _MSG or not) > > In my opinion, the second version is much more readable. It is easy to see the > differences in the boilerplate. It is easy to see what is being tested, and how > the arguments of the tested function vary for each test. It is easy to see the > expected result and error message. The entire block fits into a single short > window (though much wider). I have no opinion on the over 80 char thing, so as long as everyone else is okay with it, I have no complaints. Cheers
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: brendanhiggins@google.com (Brendan Higgins) Subject: [RFC v3 17/19] of: unittest: migrate tests to run on KUnit Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 16:29:04 -0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAFd5g45GjG871ynfMADN+4zmecfARCk2ribY7MsMSc4=QkNqgQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw) Message-ID: <20190228002904.0GBZ5PPIeeTVCzUIN6dmICIM8z78Qu_Q-gNNTW9Tjm4@z> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1d72f04e-08ba-e3dd-c8c0-512946126113@gmail.com> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019@2:56 PM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 2/12/19 5:44 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018@12:56 PM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 1:38 PM Brendan Higgins > >> <brendanhiggins@google.com> wrote: <snip> > >>> --- > >>> drivers/of/Kconfig | 1 + > >>> drivers/of/unittest.c | 1405 ++++++++++++++++++++++------------------- > >>> 2 files changed, 752 insertions(+), 654 deletions(-) > >>> > > <snip> > >>> diff --git a/drivers/of/unittest.c b/drivers/of/unittest.c > >>> index 41b49716ac75f..a5ef44730ffdb 100644 > >>> --- a/drivers/of/unittest.c > >>> +++ b/drivers/of/unittest.c <snip> > >>> + > >>> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, > >>> + of_property_match_string(np, > >>> + "phandle-list-names", > >>> + "first"), > >>> + 0); > >>> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, > >>> + of_property_match_string(np, > >>> + "phandle-list-names", > >>> + "second"), > >>> + 1); > >> > >> Fewer lines on these would be better even if we go over 80 chars. > > Agreed. unittest.c already is a greater than 80 char file in general, and > is a file that benefits from that. > Noted. > > > On the of_property_match_string(...), I have no opinion. I will do > > whatever you like best. > > > > Nevertheless, as far as the KUNIT_EXPECT_*(...), I do have an opinion: I am > > trying to establish a good, readable convention. Given an expect statement > > structured as > > ``` > > KUNIT_EXPECT_*( > > test, > > expect_arg_0, ..., expect_arg_n, > > fmt_str, fmt_arg_0, ..., fmt_arg_n) > > ``` > > where `test` is the `struct kunit` context argument, `expect_arg_{0, ..., n}` > > are the arguments the expectations is being made about (so in the above example, > > `of_property_match_string(...)` and `1`), and `fmt_*` is the optional format > > string that comes at the end of some expectations. > > > > The pattern I had been trying to promote is the following: > > > > 1) If everything fits on 1 line, do that. > > 2) If you must make a line split, prefer to keep `test` on its own line, > > `expect_arg_{0, ..., n}` should be kept together, if possible, and the format > > string should follow the conventions already most commonly used with format > > strings. > > 3) If you must split up `expect_arg_{0, ..., n}` each argument should get its > > own line and should not share a line with either `test` or any `fmt_*`. > > > > The reason I care about this so much is because expectations should be > > extremely easy to read; they are the most important part of a unit > > test because they tell you what the test is verifying. I am not > > married to the formatting I proposed above, but I want something that > > will be extremely easy to identify the arguments that the expectation > > is on. Maybe that means that I need to add some syntactic fluff to > > make it clearer, I don't know, but this is definitely something we > > need to get right, especially in the earliest examples. > > I will probably raise the ire of the kernel formatting rule makers by offering > what I think is a _much_ more readable format __for this specific case__. > In other words for drivers/of/unittest.c. > > If you can not make your mail window _very_ wide, or if this email has been > line wrapped, this example will not be clear. > > Two possible formats: > > > ### ----- version 1, as created by the patch series > > static void of_unittest_property_string(struct kunit *test) > { > const char *strings[4]; > struct device_node *np; > int rc; > > np = of_find_node_by_path("/testcase-data/phandle-tests/consumer-a"); > KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, np); > > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ( > test, > of_property_match_string(np, "phandle-list-names", "first"), > 0); > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ( > test, > of_property_match_string(np, "phandle-list-names", "second"), > 1); > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ( > test, > of_property_match_string(np, "phandle-list-names", "third"), > 2); > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG( > test, > of_property_match_string(np, "phandle-list-names", "fourth"), > -ENODATA, > "unmatched string"); > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG( > test, > of_property_match_string(np, "missing-property", "blah"), > -EINVAL, > "missing property"); > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG( > test, > of_property_match_string(np, "empty-property", "blah"), > -ENODATA, > "empty property"); > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG( > test, > of_property_match_string(np, "unterminated-string", "blah"), > -EILSEQ, > "unterminated string"); > > /* of_property_count_strings() tests */ > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, > of_property_count_strings(np, "string-property"), 1); > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, > of_property_count_strings(np, "phandle-list-names"), 3); > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG( > test, > of_property_count_strings(np, "unterminated-string"), -EILSEQ, > "unterminated string"); > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG( > test, > of_property_count_strings(np, "unterminated-string-list"), > -EILSEQ, > "unterminated string array"); > > > > > ### ----- version 2, modified to use really long lines > > static void of_unittest_property_string(struct kunit *test) > { > const char *strings[4]; > struct device_node *np; > int rc; > > np = of_find_node_by_path("/testcase-data/phandle-tests/consumer-a"); > KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, np); > > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ( test, of_property_match_string(np, "phandle-list-names", "first"), 0); > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ( test, of_property_match_string(np, "phandle-list-names", "second"), 1); > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ( test, of_property_match_string(np, "phandle-list-names", "third"), 2); > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, of_property_match_string(np, "phandle-list-names", "fourth"), -ENODATA, "unmatched string"); > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, of_property_match_string(np, "missing-property", "blah"), -EINVAL, "missing property"); > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, of_property_match_string(np, "empty-property", "blah"), -ENODATA, "empty property"); > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, of_property_match_string(np, "unterminated-string", "blah"), -EILSEQ, "unterminated string"); > > /* of_property_count_strings() tests */ > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ( test, of_property_count_strings(np, "string-property"), 1); > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ( test, of_property_count_strings(np, "phandle-list-names"), 3); > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, of_property_count_strings(np, "unterminated-string"), -EILSEQ, "unterminated string"); > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, of_property_count_strings(np, "unterminated-string-list"), -EILSEQ, "unterminated string array"); > > > ------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- > ^ ^ ^ > | | | > | | | > mostly boilerplate what is being tested expected result, error message > (can vary in relop > and _MSG or not) > > In my opinion, the second version is much more readable. It is easy to see the > differences in the boilerplate. It is easy to see what is being tested, and how > the arguments of the tested function vary for each test. It is easy to see the > expected result and error message. The entire block fits into a single short > window (though much wider). I have no opinion on the over 80 char thing, so as long as everyone else is okay with it, I have no complaints. Cheers
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-28 0:29 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 232+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2018-11-28 19:36 [RFC v3 00/19] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework brendanhiggins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 01/19] kunit: test: add KUnit test runner core brendanhiggins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-30 3:14 ` mcgrof 2018-11-30 3:14 ` Luis Chamberlain 2018-12-01 1:51 ` brendanhiggins 2018-12-01 1:51 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-12-01 2:57 ` mcgrof 2018-12-01 2:57 ` Luis Chamberlain 2018-12-05 13:15 ` anton.ivanov 2018-12-05 13:15 ` Anton Ivanov 2018-12-05 14:45 ` arnd 2018-12-05 14:45 ` Arnd Bergmann 2018-12-05 14:49 ` anton.ivanov 2018-12-05 14:49 ` Anton Ivanov 2018-11-30 3:28 ` mcgrof 2018-11-30 3:28 ` Luis Chamberlain 2018-12-01 2:08 ` brendanhiggins 2018-12-01 2:08 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-12-01 3:10 ` mcgrof 2018-12-01 3:10 ` Luis Chamberlain 2018-12-03 22:47 ` brendanhiggins 2018-12-03 22:47 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-12-01 3:02 ` mcgrof 2018-12-01 3:02 ` Luis Chamberlain 2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 02/19] kunit: test: add test resource management API brendanhiggins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 03/19] kunit: test: add string_stream a std::stream like string builder brendanhiggins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-30 3:29 ` mcgrof 2018-11-30 3:29 ` Luis Chamberlain 2018-12-01 2:14 ` brendanhiggins 2018-12-01 2:14 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-12-01 3:12 ` mcgrof 2018-12-01 3:12 ` Luis Chamberlain 2018-12-03 10:55 ` pmladek 2018-12-03 10:55 ` Petr Mladek 2018-12-04 0:35 ` brendanhiggins 2018-12-04 0:35 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 04/19] kunit: test: add test_stream a std::stream like logger brendanhiggins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 05/19] kunit: test: add the concept of expectations brendanhiggins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 06/19] arch: um: enable running kunit from User Mode Linux brendanhiggins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-28 21:26 ` robh 2018-11-28 21:26 ` Rob Herring 2018-11-30 3:37 ` mcgrof 2018-11-30 3:37 ` Luis Chamberlain 2018-11-30 14:05 ` robh 2018-11-30 14:05 ` Rob Herring 2018-11-30 18:22 ` mcgrof 2018-11-30 18:22 ` Luis Chamberlain 2018-12-03 23:22 ` brendanhiggins 2018-12-03 23:22 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-30 3:30 ` mcgrof 2018-11-30 3:30 ` Luis Chamberlain 2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 07/19] kunit: test: add initial tests brendanhiggins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-30 3:40 ` mcgrof 2018-11-30 3:40 ` Luis Chamberlain 2018-12-03 23:26 ` brendanhiggins 2018-12-03 23:26 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-12-03 23:43 ` mcgrof 2018-12-03 23:43 ` Luis Chamberlain 2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 08/19] arch: um: add shim to trap to allow installing a fault catcher for tests brendanhiggins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-30 3:34 ` mcgrof 2018-11-30 3:34 ` Luis Chamberlain 2018-12-03 23:34 ` brendanhiggins 2018-12-03 23:34 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-12-03 23:46 ` mcgrof 2018-12-03 23:46 ` Luis Chamberlain 2018-12-04 0:44 ` brendanhiggins 2018-12-04 0:44 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-30 3:41 ` mcgrof 2018-11-30 3:41 ` Luis Chamberlain 2018-12-03 23:37 ` brendanhiggins 2018-12-03 23:37 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 09/19] kunit: test: add the concept of assertions brendanhiggins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 10/19] kunit: test: add test managed resource tests brendanhiggins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 11/19] kunit: add Python libraries for handing KUnit config and kernel brendanhiggins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-29 13:54 ` kieran.bingham 2018-11-29 13:54 ` Kieran Bingham 2018-12-03 23:48 ` brendanhiggins 2018-12-03 23:48 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-12-04 20:47 ` mcgrof 2018-12-04 20:47 ` Luis Chamberlain 2018-12-06 12:32 ` kieran.bingham 2018-12-06 12:32 ` Kieran Bingham 2018-12-06 15:37 ` willy 2018-12-06 15:37 ` Matthew Wilcox 2018-12-07 11:30 ` kieran.bingham 2018-12-07 11:30 ` Kieran Bingham 2018-12-11 14:09 ` pmladek 2018-12-11 14:09 ` Petr Mladek 2018-12-11 14:41 ` rostedt 2018-12-11 14:41 ` Steven Rostedt 2018-12-11 17:01 ` anton.ivanov 2018-12-11 17:01 ` Anton Ivanov 2019-02-09 0:40 ` brendanhiggins 2019-02-09 0:40 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-12-07 1:05 ` mcgrof 2018-12-07 1:05 ` Luis Chamberlain 2018-12-07 18:35 ` kent.overstreet 2018-12-07 18:35 ` Kent Overstreet 2018-11-30 3:44 ` mcgrof 2018-11-30 3:44 ` Luis Chamberlain 2018-12-03 23:50 ` brendanhiggins 2018-12-03 23:50 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-12-04 20:48 ` mcgrof 2018-12-04 20:48 ` Luis Chamberlain 2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 12/19] kunit: add KUnit wrapper script and simple output parser brendanhiggins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 13/19] kunit: improve output from python wrapper brendanhiggins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 14/19] Documentation: kunit: add documentation for KUnit brendanhiggins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-29 13:56 ` kieran.bingham 2018-11-29 13:56 ` Kieran Bingham 2018-11-30 3:45 ` mcgrof 2018-11-30 3:45 ` Luis Chamberlain 2018-12-03 23:53 ` brendanhiggins 2018-12-03 23:53 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-12-06 12:16 ` kieran.bingham 2018-12-06 12:16 ` Kieran Bingham 2019-02-09 0:56 ` brendanhiggins 2019-02-09 0:56 ` Brendan Higgins 2019-02-11 12:16 ` kieran.bingham 2019-02-11 12:16 ` Kieran Bingham 2019-02-12 22:10 ` brendanhiggins 2019-02-12 22:10 ` Brendan Higgins 2019-02-13 21:55 ` kieran.bingham 2019-02-13 21:55 ` Kieran Bingham 2019-02-14 0:17 ` brendanhiggins 2019-02-14 0:17 ` Brendan Higgins 2019-02-14 17:26 ` mcgrof 2019-02-14 17:26 ` Luis Chamberlain 2019-02-14 22:07 ` brendanhiggins 2019-02-14 22:07 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 15/19] MAINTAINERS: add entry for KUnit the unit testing framework brendanhiggins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 16/19] arch: um: make UML unflatten device tree when testing brendanhiggins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-28 21:16 ` robh 2018-11-28 21:16 ` Rob Herring 2018-12-04 0:00 ` brendanhiggins 2018-12-04 0:00 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-30 3:46 ` mcgrof 2018-11-30 3:46 ` Luis Chamberlain 2018-12-04 0:02 ` brendanhiggins 2018-12-04 0:02 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 17/19] of: unittest: migrate tests to run on KUnit brendanhiggins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` Brendan Higgins [not found] ` <CAL_Jsq+09Kx7yMBC_Jw45QGmk6U_fp4N6HOZDwYrM4tWw+_dOA@mail.gmail.com> 2018-11-30 0:39 ` rdunlap 2018-11-30 0:39 ` Randy Dunlap 2018-12-04 0:13 ` brendanhiggins 2018-12-04 0:13 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-12-04 13:40 ` robh 2018-12-04 13:40 ` Rob Herring 2018-12-05 23:42 ` brendanhiggins 2018-12-05 23:42 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-12-07 0:41 ` robh 2018-12-07 0:41 ` Rob Herring 2018-12-04 0:08 ` brendanhiggins 2018-12-04 0:08 ` Brendan Higgins 2019-02-13 1:44 ` brendanhiggins 2019-02-13 1:44 ` Brendan Higgins 2019-02-14 20:10 ` robh 2019-02-14 20:10 ` Rob Herring 2019-02-14 21:52 ` brendanhiggins 2019-02-14 21:52 ` Brendan Higgins 2019-02-18 22:56 ` frowand.list 2019-02-18 22:56 ` Frank Rowand 2019-02-28 0:29 ` brendanhiggins [this message] 2019-02-28 0:29 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-12-04 10:56 ` frowand.list 2018-12-04 10:56 ` Frank Rowand 2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 18/19] of: unittest: split out a couple of test cases from unittest brendanhiggins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-12-04 10:58 ` frowand.list 2018-12-04 10:58 ` Frank Rowand 2018-12-05 23:54 ` brendanhiggins 2018-12-05 23:54 ` Brendan Higgins 2019-02-14 23:57 ` frowand.list 2019-02-14 23:57 ` Frank Rowand 2019-02-15 0:56 ` brendanhiggins 2019-02-15 0:56 ` Brendan Higgins 2019-02-15 2:05 ` frowand.list 2019-02-15 2:05 ` Frank Rowand 2019-02-15 10:56 ` brendanhiggins 2019-02-15 10:56 ` Brendan Higgins 2019-02-18 22:25 ` frowand.list 2019-02-18 22:25 ` Frank Rowand 2019-02-20 20:44 ` frowand.list 2019-02-20 20:44 ` Frank Rowand 2019-02-20 20:47 ` frowand.list 2019-02-20 20:47 ` Frank Rowand 2019-02-28 3:52 ` brendanhiggins 2019-02-28 3:52 ` Brendan Higgins 2019-03-22 0:22 ` frowand.list 2019-03-22 0:22 ` Frank Rowand 2019-03-22 1:30 ` brendanhiggins 2019-03-22 1:30 ` Brendan Higgins 2019-03-22 1:47 ` frowand.list 2019-03-22 1:47 ` Frank Rowand 2019-03-25 22:15 ` brendanhiggins 2019-03-25 22:15 ` Brendan Higgins 2019-09-20 16:57 ` Rob Herring 2019-09-21 23:57 ` Frank Rowand 2019-03-22 1:34 ` frowand.list 2019-03-22 1:34 ` Frank Rowand 2019-03-25 22:18 ` brendanhiggins 2019-03-25 22:18 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 19/19] of: unittest: split up some super large test cases brendanhiggins 2018-11-28 19:36 ` Brendan Higgins 2018-12-04 10:52 ` [RFC v3 00/19] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework frowand.list 2018-12-04 10:52 ` Frank Rowand 2018-12-04 11:40 ` frowand.list 2018-12-04 11:40 ` Frank Rowand 2018-12-04 13:49 ` robh 2018-12-04 13:49 ` Rob Herring 2018-12-05 23:10 ` brendanhiggins 2018-12-05 23:10 ` Brendan Higgins 2019-03-22 0:27 ` frowand.list 2019-03-22 0:27 ` Frank Rowand 2019-03-25 22:04 ` brendanhiggins 2019-03-25 22:04 ` Brendan Higgins
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='CAFd5g45GjG871ynfMADN+4zmecfARCk2ribY7MsMSc4=QkNqgQ@mail.gmail.com' \ --to=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \ /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: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).