From: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
Cc: brendanhiggins@google.com, davidgow@google.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, skhan@linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] kunit: more assertion reworking
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2022 11:00:14 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGS_qxqVUmjxULZ_Kt-gWRJb=+EYpG2_K89sQTq0BYbUighn5w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANiq72nU-eDOT94q26dTVgCFA_Hs1cGiLpDCmQ5n-cCVKAcsqQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Oct 1, 2022 at 3:15 AM Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 1, 2022 at 2:26 AM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > Note: this does change the function signature of
> > kunit_do_failed_assertion, so we'd need to update the rust wrapper in
> > https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/blob/rust/rust/kernel/kunit.rs,
> > but hopefully it's just a simple change, e.g. maybe just like:
>
> Yeah, should be simple. Thanks for pointing it out!
>
> The series looks like a great cleanup on top of the stack reduction.
Thanks for taking a look at the rest of the series as well.
While I have you here, any thoughts on how to coordinate the change?
I made the breaking change patch#1 so it should be easier to pull out.
One option I was thinking was:
* wait till this lands in Shuah's tree
* I create a Github PR that contains patch#1 + a patch for kunit.rs
I was not clear on how the RfL Github pulls in upstream changes or how often.
But my assumption is patch#1 would fall away naturally if rebasing
onto 6.1 (and maybe we can squash the kunit.rs change).
Thanks,
Daniel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-10-01 18:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-01 0:26 [PATCH 0/4] kunit: more assertion reworking Daniel Latypov
2022-10-01 0:26 ` [PATCH 1/4] kunit: remove format func from struct kunit_assert, get it to 0 bytes Daniel Latypov
2022-10-01 3:26 ` David Gow
2022-10-01 0:26 ` [PATCH 2/4] kunit: rename base KUNIT_ASSERTION macro to _KUNIT_FAILED Daniel Latypov
2022-10-01 3:26 ` David Gow
2022-10-01 3:50 ` Daniel Latypov
2022-10-01 4:13 ` David Gow
2022-10-01 0:26 ` [PATCH 3/4] kunit: eliminate KUNIT_INIT_*_ASSERT_STRUCT macros Daniel Latypov
2022-10-01 3:26 ` David Gow
2022-10-01 10:12 ` Miguel Ojeda
2022-10-01 17:48 ` Daniel Latypov
2022-10-01 0:26 ` [PATCH 4/4] kunit: declare kunit_assert structs as const Daniel Latypov
2022-10-01 3:26 ` David Gow
2022-10-01 10:06 ` Miguel Ojeda
2022-10-01 10:15 ` [PATCH 0/4] kunit: more assertion reworking Miguel Ojeda
2022-10-01 18:00 ` Daniel Latypov [this message]
2022-10-18 23:20 ` Miguel Ojeda
2022-10-18 23:26 ` Daniel Latypov
2022-10-18 23:39 ` Miguel Ojeda
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='CAGS_qxqVUmjxULZ_Kt-gWRJb=+EYpG2_K89sQTq0BYbUighn5w@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=dlatypov@google.com \
--cc=brendanhiggins@google.com \
--cc=davidgow@google.com \
--cc=kunit-dev@googlegroups.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com \
--cc=skhan@linuxfoundation.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: link
Be 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).