From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: logang at deltatee.com (Logan Gunthorpe) Date: Thu, 2 May 2019 21:18:40 -0600 Subject: [PATCH v2 00/17] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework In-Reply-To: <20190501230126.229218-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> References: <20190501230126.229218-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> Message-ID: On 2019-05-01 5:01 p.m., Brendan Higgins wrote: > ## TLDR > > I rebased the last patchset on 5.1-rc7 in hopes that we can get this in > 5.2. > As I said on the last posting, I like this and would like to see it move forward. I still have the same concerns over the downsides of using UML (ie. not being able to compile large swaths of the tree due to features that don't exist in that arch) but these are concerns for later. I'd prefer to see the unnecessary indirection that I pointed out in patch 8 cleaned up but, besides that, the code looks good to me. Reviewed-by: Logan Gunthorpe Thanks! Logan From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: logang@deltatee.com (Logan Gunthorpe) Date: Thu, 2 May 2019 21:18:40 -0600 Subject: [PATCH v2 00/17] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework In-Reply-To: <20190501230126.229218-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> References: <20190501230126.229218-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Message-ID: <20190503031840.RRkKxnvEso5BSty2VEbxlKTrmluyTzvimqDs2uvJzSQ@z> On 2019-05-01 5:01 p.m., Brendan Higgins wrote: > ## TLDR > > I rebased the last patchset on 5.1-rc7 in hopes that we can get this in > 5.2. > As I said on the last posting, I like this and would like to see it move forward. I still have the same concerns over the downsides of using UML (ie. not being able to compile large swaths of the tree due to features that don't exist in that arch) but these are concerns for later. I'd prefer to see the unnecessary indirection that I pointed out in patch 8 cleaned up but, besides that, the code looks good to me. Reviewed-by: Logan Gunthorpe Thanks! Logan