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=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 CF64CECE58B for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 23:16:06 +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 A3238222C2 for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 23:16:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="WM0U4KZ8" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org A3238222C2 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org 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 274F210FC325C; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 16:17:08 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: Pass (mailfrom) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=198.145.29.99; helo=mail.kernel.org; envelope-from=shuah@kernel.org; receiver= Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DE3310FC325A for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 16:17:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.112] (c-24-9-64-241.hsd1.co.comcast.net [24.9.64.241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 07CB7215EA; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 23:16:00 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1570230963; bh=ed2Oj0Rtnhm1rXJkcqfJxOLIvuDPtA/O2HMmNV71h1A=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=WM0U4KZ8Yc4SM5CiFfv5XPcZ0aRzdXwsYvoXnNevsXnJsPyjQKtdRXjIMQzZ+kVOJ 6YPavRWeR2P5RDQEazsuY+5qqP9SteouIZAzdGwtjgnZiXBW45gWTz4CaJtz77mMLh 9WfdeFi7Wi/iRWJWlEXKUF33HUEeeyYS7Fk3RiSQ= Subject: Re: [PATCH v18 00/19] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework To: Brendan Higgins References: <20190923090249.127984-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> <20191004213812.GA24644@mit.edu> <56e2e1a7-f8fe-765b-8452-1710b41895bf@kernel.org> <20191004222714.GA107737@google.com>

From: shuah Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2019 17:15:59 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Message-ID-Hash: Y6MWB7PHBU7AX37VR3A3T5TDWC6SMQPJ X-Message-ID-Hash: Y6MWB7PHBU7AX37VR3A3T5TDWC6SMQPJ X-MailFrom: shuah@kernel.org X-Mailman-Rule-Hits: nonmember-moderation X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation CC: Linus Torvalds , "Theodore Y. Ts'o" , 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 , shuah , 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"; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 10/4/19 5:10 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote: > On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 3:47 PM shuah wrote: >> >> On 10/4/19 4:27 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote: >>> On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 03:59:10PM -0600, shuah wrote: >>>> On 10/4/19 3:42 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 2:39 PM Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> This question is primarily directed at Shuah and Linus.... >>>>>> >>>>>> What's the current status of the kunit series now that Brendan has >>>>>> moved it out of the top-level kunit directory as Linus has requested? >>>>> >>>> >>>> The move happened smack in the middle of merge window and landed in >>>> linux-next towards the end of the merge window. >>>> >>>>> We seemed to decide to just wait for 5.5, but there is nothing that >>>>> looks to block that. And I encouraged Shuah to find more kunit cases >>>>> for when it _does_ get merged. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Right. I communicated that to Brendan that we could work on adding more >>>> kunit based tests which would help get more mileage on the kunit. >>>> >>>>> So if the kunit branch is stable, and people want to start using it >>>>> for their unit tests, then I think that would be a good idea, and then >>>>> during the 5.5 merge window we'll not just get the infrastructure, >>>>> we'll get a few more users too and not just examples. >>> >>> I was planning on holding off on accepting more tests/changes until >>> KUnit is in torvalds/master. As much as I would like to go around >>> promoting it, I don't really want to promote too much complexity in a >>> non-upstream branch before getting it upstream because I don't want to >>> risk adding something that might cause it to get rejected again. >>> >>> To be clear, I can understand from your perspective why getting more >>> tests/usage before accepting it is a good thing. The more people that >>> play around with it, the more likely that someone will find an issue >>> with it, and more likely that what is accepted into torvalds/master is >>> of high quality. >>> >>> However, if I encourage arbitrary tests/improvements into my KUnit >>> branch, it further diverges away from torvalds/master, and is more >>> likely that there will be a merge conflict or issue that is not related >>> to the core KUnit changes that will cause the whole thing to be >>> rejected again in v5.5. >>> >> >> The idea is that the new development will happen based on kunit in >> linux-kselftest next. It will work just fine. As we accepts patches, >> they will go on top of kunit that is in linux-next now. > > But then wouldn't we want to limit what KUnit changes are going into > linux-kselftest next for v5.5? For example, we probably don't want to > do anymore feature development on it until it is in v5.5, since the > goal is to make it more stable, right? > > I am guessing that it will probably be fine, but it still sounds like > we need to establish some ground rules, and play it *very* safe. > How about we identify a small number tests that can add value and focus on them. I am thinking a number between 2 and 5. This way we get a feel for the API, if it changes for the better great, if it doesn't have to, then you know you already did a great job. Does that sound reasonable to you? thanks, -- Shuah _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list -- linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org To unsubscribe send an email to linux-nvdimm-leave@lists.01.org