From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF388C47404 for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 08:20:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ml01.01.org (ml01.01.org [198.145.21.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B10320867 for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 08:20:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="ucHtKJn0" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 8B10320867 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-nvdimm-bounces@lists.01.org Received: from new-ml01.vlan13.01.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91C1910FC575F; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 01:23:30 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: Pass (mailfrom) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::643; helo=mail-pl1-x643.google.com; envelope-from=brendanhiggins@google.com; receiver= Received: from mail-pl1-x643.google.com (mail-pl1-x643.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::643]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 592DF10FC575C for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 01:23:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x643.google.com with SMTP id c3so5030831plo.2 for ; Mon, 07 Oct 2019 01:20:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ote0/C1JReGNWp+FkearLP+n5iZPIKVYgqsUmtRTjFs=; b=ucHtKJn0UJ/TfFDX+4FXj4mOFaUq1DsFLZGjyuBNxfgLXveZezTTcBAH3AoBOIOBEU 9Q68fJQlIZMn6KrlKTDzJpjNG8TqWULiaH2rlCAcf0lZ+nNuMEV+zgZrBiY1Dw9yJ+u+ CnikzZLmoBcE6hsbUbbZy61X/2MSIy8UU9KMfv7H8WYsp7Inq5RegXOks3+X+J8jqMPm hKQmH60pRG9T9rirx2yP0hvm85sKqjotn7r05OGpiU9g/AO8TGbcjQmonzZgKOXmk0sp Q/OF6iGuie1Fhf7sgCtf3kcTPs1M9fwLUXXUhWuFlWamP+XzN2k7qw0YD2qXx5TZ+Lra z5Tg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ote0/C1JReGNWp+FkearLP+n5iZPIKVYgqsUmtRTjFs=; b=f1yjo1+vq6rBY66d4/XUFUdFvvzzRGQe3xYZtmG2jPijmbotubq0ZNspbkoH+pcibU zjnm66aS4/Fzu6gv6dbFn5DELbyeq8YI9So9Smh0MJVF/wp9jA7uJQ7GG22CHFBG7iID OF5yq8V0PnqVF/r0RxRd0KnEIxax4Y+7o00We/4n/CY8lZ8QgIFTmwEO6OKObYvE4Z3I 6IoLt//+EBCbPYDj3KOvqyu/LXkLh8ie7lIY1iVFZnJ5yUbYMN+ODcoy4r0sjaPuZT8l 7meq6fMoRl1jmhLS1/8fSiZHchLy1M5zxCx8MFhVRzEoCRJekJACkgOApmIkiOjDO0hM k1Aw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXz2jglWV/yjKyw1U4QevmHsYftK0X8abQHGC3PVOkSU+LNuF5A og02UykI9GNGy446hsEicvIPnbuBDWxJ92ZLJIYWzA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx8Yk5sgQkWXnFQm4/CGRSWyRMpxzmUgLAHY9vWCZW1JOEviLWEyRGwfm5yzonhZdNlXfXkmD5OjjAPHS+whBM= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:8f88:: with SMTP id z8mr28990175plo.232.1570436445413; Mon, 07 Oct 2019 01:20:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <56e2e1a7-f8fe-765b-8452-1710b41895bf@kernel.org> <20191004222714.GA107737@google.com> <20191004232955.GC12012@mit.edu> <63e59b0b-b51e-01f4-6359-a134a1f903fd@kernel.org> <544bdfcb-fb35-5008-ec94-8d404a08fd14@kernel.org> <20191006165436.GA29585@mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <20191006165436.GA29585@mit.edu> From: Brendan Higgins Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2019 01:20:34 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v18 00/19] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" Message-ID-Hash: 2ABHV5QDSTM2256BHEXSY2KVYARYA3GV X-Message-ID-Hash: 2ABHV5QDSTM2256BHEXSY2KVYARYA3GV X-MailFrom: brendanhiggins@google.com X-Mailman-Rule-Hits: nonmember-moderation X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation CC: shuah , Linus Torvalds , Frank Rowand , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Josh Poimboeuf , Kees Cook , Kieran Bingham , Luis Chamberlain , Peter Zijlstra , Rob Herring , Stephen Boyd , Masahiro Yamada , devicetree , dri-devel , kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, "open list:DOCUMENTATION" , linux-fsdevel , Linux Kbuild mailing list , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" , linux-nvdimm , linux-um@lists.infradead.org, Sasha Levin , "Bird, Timothy" , Amir Goldstein , Dan Carpenter , Daniel Vetter , Jeff Dike , Joel Stanley , Julia Lawall , Kevin Hilman , Knut Omang , Michael Ellerman , Petr Mladek , Randy Dunlap , Richard Weinberger , David Rientjes , Steven Rostedt , wfg@linux.intel.com X-Mailman-Version: 3.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: "Linux-nvdimm developer list." Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 9:55 AM Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 06:18:04PM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote: > > > Let's talk about current state. Right now kunit is in linux-next and > > > we want to add a few more tests. We will have to coordinate the effort. > > > Once kunit get into mainline, then the need for this coordination goes > > > down. > > > > Sure, I was just thinking that getting other people to write the tests > > would be better. Since not only is it then useful to someone else, it > > provides the best possible exercise of KUnit. > > Well, one thing we *can* do is if (a) if we can create a kselftest > branch which we know is stable and won't change, and (b) we can get > assurances that Linus *will* accept that branch during the next merge > window, those subsystems which want to use kself test can simply pull > it into their tree. Yeah, I can't think of any reason that you haven't outlined already why that might not work, but that seems kind of like circumventing Linus. > We've done this before in the file system world, when there has been > some common set of changes needed to improve, say, Direct I/O, where > the changes are put into a standalone branch, say, in the xfs tree, > and those file systems which need it as a building block can pull it > into their tree, and then add the changes needed to use those changes > into their file system git tree. These changes are generally not > terribly controversial, and we've not had to worry about people want > to bikeshed the changes. > > There is a risk with doing this of course, which is that if the branch > *is* controversial, or gets bike-shedded for some reason, then Linus > gets upset and any branches which depended on said branch will get > rejected at the next merge window. Which is the requirement for (a) > and (b) above. Presumably, the fact that people were unwilling to let > Kunit land during this merge window might will *because* we think more > changes might be pending? My understanding, based on what I have been told, is that we were simply unlucky with the timing when Linus pulled the branch in the first week of the 5.4 merge window (Friday), such that once I fixed the directory naming issue, the updated changes didn't spend enough time in linux-next. And now with this issue fixed and KUnit back in linux-next, if nothing interesting happens between now and 5.5, it will be accepted in the 5.5 merge window. I do not think that anyone is expecting anymore changes before merging. Shuah, Linus, is my understanding correct? > The other thing I suppose I can do is to let the ext4 kunit tests land > in ext4 tree, but with the necessary #ifdef's around things like > "#include " so that the build won't blow up w/o kunit > changes being in the tree that I'm building. It means I won't be able > to run the tests without creating a test integration branch and > merging in kunit by hand, which will super-annoying, of course. And > if some of the bike-shedding is in Kunit's interfaces, then that > becomes problematic as well, since any tests that are in ext4.git tree > might change if people want to rename Kunit's publically exported > functions (for example). Yeah, that seems even worse. I'm sorry to have caused this frustration. > > Hey Ted, do you know if that ext4 timestamp test can go in through > > linux-kselftest? It seemed fairly self-contained. Or is that what you > > were saying wouldn't work for you? > > Well, I was hoping that we might start creating more tests beyond just > the ext4 timestamp tests.... Okay, that's what I thought (and what I hoped) you were saying :-) I hope we can figure out something that will work for you. Or otherwise that you won't mind waiting until 5.5. Sorry _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list -- linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org To unsubscribe send an email to linux-nvdimm-leave@lists.01.org