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=-8.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_PASS,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=ham 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 1CAB6C43381 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 00:56:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFDC721B1C for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 00:56:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="CIdR9t/q" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726544AbfBOA4s (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Feb 2019 19:56:48 -0500 Received: from mail-ot1-f65.google.com ([209.85.210.65]:44645 "EHLO mail-ot1-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726014AbfBOA4r (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Feb 2019 19:56:47 -0500 Received: by mail-ot1-f65.google.com with SMTP id g1so13823420otj.11 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 16:56:47 -0800 (PST) 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=MyM751NwMFtU1TXOfkeWSlPL++zlDJtqG4gn7hY55fU=; b=CIdR9t/qUO6pKfNH5RPv025oSe2aWVZMiqmRxxrwiU7IgHtyFE46n0jZKTxOd5vXho 2SMfSOmiO05oAeGiynmK7U7bMebpaAQ+vnaCrja0WKWbdQuDDQ8XApB1J3v5MCW3YwxN gEFpS2kVJkwaYz4K+Et4V1p6S2adYvugKyCEWggb14v5nakj7fW08U9zKn/0txWpQG5S RoFexJJb7I37QAvYkavNulgSF4Kw1o2OR0wLAojaL3h8nFjd3SrU3gO5hNs72BesmRIw 8JRKitGw3ziApD/WBwOKWXAase7etM8d9mO2RzvCcusw8rjGamQ1zdk2NfM8NrAemIf8 /huQ== 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=MyM751NwMFtU1TXOfkeWSlPL++zlDJtqG4gn7hY55fU=; b=t7caC2Sw2BhHuuZbd+dgnOCr6+tsIKXv2ROPE+5oNKrcJTanA9t9ZSp0kSw+49w/ot cxuDgWJ3AeTdJ2816uTnhaNfg+zgVmowyXPcboDPeXO/LUcHGleVvimJQQ2qM2t2mxV8 3Zi34qhOJv3sa2Xsz9jIo+Mp63f+zif7DFS4OyooRMxH60iB3gY/pyB7TLm+8FJS43uq f9mZsLUe24tBa9wLzI4vT0cYSvslKeqo6cqdEUNEV5BslZ5soinAudsOkf7B6x/Uq56J TRfCXuYnW4794JJzjwXlhMc51L8nnYT1RiWRqShFo4g+5In3axfHLwGipwD6tE3uTF1i yw1w== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAua6hFak7+AZ/RDGOOYu6xCUU7432UKLufZcICkIn8p7KAd3zNht cL5mEa3FzuPt5RFth8tX8js7sD2xCMze82HFva0QwQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IZOuPVG3HrJgoDqVlI6kdBpeoosTYOCZka/ezmJ+76QuokI50wGjqqIKz6e5kMXYf9up+AmH2E5xdy495M7uMM= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:7597:: with SMTP id s23mr4134141otk.25.1550192206364; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 16:56:46 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20181128193636.254378-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> <20181128193636.254378-19-brendanhiggins@google.com> <990bfc7d-dc5e-d8d3-c151-9b321ff2ac10@gmail.com> <88fe0546-7850-5bb4-9673-b1aef2dccb3e@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <88fe0546-7850-5bb4-9673-b1aef2dccb3e@gmail.com> From: Brendan Higgins Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 16:56:34 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC v3 18/19] of: unittest: split out a couple of test cases from unittest To: Frank Rowand Cc: Greg KH , Kees Cook , Luis Chamberlain , shuah@kernel.org, Joel Stanley , Michael Ellerman , Joe Perches , brakmo@fb.com, Steven Rostedt , "Bird, Timothy" , Kevin Hilman , Julia Lawall , linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List , Jeff Dike , Richard Weinberger , linux-um@lists.infradead.org, Daniel Vetter , dri-devel , Rob Herring , Dan Williams , linux-nvdimm , Kieran Bingham , Knut Omang Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 3:57 PM Frank Rowand wrote: > > On 12/5/18 3:54 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 2:58 AM Frank Rowand wrote: > >> > >> Hi Brendan, > >> > >> On 11/28/18 11:36 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote: > >>> Split out a couple of test cases that these features in base.c from the > >>> unittest.c monolith. The intention is that we will eventually split out > >>> all test cases and group them together based on what portion of device > >>> tree they test. > >> > >> Why does splitting this file apart improve the implementation? > > > > This is in preparation for patch 19/19 and other hypothetical future > > patches where test cases are split up and grouped together by what > > portion of DT they test (for example the parsing tests and the > > platform/device tests would probably go separate files as well). This > > patch by itself does not do anything useful, but I figured it made > > patch 19/19 (and, if you like what I am doing, subsequent patches) > > easier to review. > > I do not see any value in splitting the devicetree tests into > multiple files. > > Please help me understand what the benefits of such a split are. Sorry, I thought it made sense in context of what I am doing in the following patch. All I am trying to do is to provide an effective way of grouping test cases. To be clear, the idea, assuming you agree, is that we would follow up with several other patches like this one and the subsequent patch, one which would pull out a couple test functions, as I have done here, and another that splits those functions up into a bunch of proper test cases. I thought that having that many unrelated test cases in a single file would just be a pain to sort through deal with, review, whatever. This is not something I feel particularly strongly about, it is just pretty atypical from my experience to have so many unrelated test cases in a single file. Maybe you would prefer that I break up the test cases first, and then we split up the file as appropriate? I just assumed that we would agree it would be way too much stuff for a single file, so I went ahead and broke it up first, because I thought it would make it easier to review in that order rather than the other way around. Cheers