Re: [RFC v3 18/19] of: unittest: split out a couple of test cases from unittest

From: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>
To: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Cc: brakmo@fb.com, dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, shuah@kernel.org,
	Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
	Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
	linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
	Knut Omang <knut.omang@oracle.com>,
	Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@ideasonboard.com>,
	Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au>, Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>,
	"Bird," Timothy" <Tim.Bird@sony.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@google.com>," linux-um@lists.infradead.org,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>,
	kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 18/19] of: unittest: split out a couple of test cases from unittest
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 18:47:35 -0700
Message-ID: <bf094685-3f2a-dc7b-7291-0340136b87f3@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFd5g448xQLOJwVYU5Zmu4+OPWuboiWZPhBvK6au8Pgm5B9haQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 3/21/19 6:30 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 5:22 PM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 2/27/19 7:52 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:

< snip >  but thanks for the comments in the snipped section.

>>
>> Thanks for leaving 18/19 and 19/19 off in v4.
> 
> Sure, no problem. It was pretty clear that it was a waste of both of
> our times to continue discussing those at this juncture. :-)
> 
> Do you still want me to try to convert the DT not-exactly-unittest to
> KUnit? I would kind of prefer (I don't feel *super* strongly about the
> matter) we don't call it that since I was intending for it to be the
> flagship initial example, but I certainly don't mind trying to clean
> this patch up to get it up to snuff. It's really just a question of
> whether it is worth it to you.

In the long term, if KUnit is adopted by the kernel, then I think it
probably makes sense for devicetree unittest to convert from using
our own unittest() function to report an individual test pass/fail
to instead use something like KUNIT_EXPECT_*() to provide more
consistent test messages to test frameworks.  That is assuming
KUNIT_EXPECT_*() provides comparable functionality.  I still have
not looked into that question since the converted tests (patch 15/17
in v4) still does not execute without throwing internal errors.

If that conversion occurred, I would also avoid the ASSERTs.

> 
> < snip >
> 
> Cheers!
> 

_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list
Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm