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=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED 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 D199FC43219 for ; Fri, 3 May 2019 03:19:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F80C2070B for ; Fri, 3 May 2019 03:19:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726457AbfECDTY (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 May 2019 23:19:24 -0400 Received: from ale.deltatee.com ([207.54.116.67]:38220 "EHLO ale.deltatee.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726114AbfECDTY (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 May 2019 23:19:24 -0400 Received: from adsl-173-228-226-134.prtc.net ([173.228.226.134] helo=[172.20.29.49]) by ale.deltatee.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hMOiq-0006pS-Iv; Thu, 02 May 2019 21:18:53 -0600 To: Brendan Higgins , frowand.list@gmail.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, keescook@google.com, kieran.bingham@ideasonboard.com, mcgrof@kernel.org, robh@kernel.org, sboyd@kernel.org, shuah@kernel.org Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, linux-um@lists.infradead.org, Alexander.Levin@microsoft.com, Tim.Bird@sony.com, amir73il@gmail.com, dan.carpenter@oracle.com, dan.j.williams@intel.com, daniel@ffwll.ch, jdike@addtoit.com, joel@jms.id.au, julia.lawall@lip6.fr, khilman@baylibre.com, knut.omang@oracle.com, mpe@ellerman.id.au, pmladek@suse.com, richard@nod.at, rientjes@google.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, wfg@linux.intel.com References: <20190501230126.229218-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> From: Logan Gunthorpe Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 May 2019 21:18:40 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190501230126.229218-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 173.228.226.134 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: wfg@linux.intel.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, rientjes@google.com, richard@nod.at, pmladek@suse.com, mpe@ellerman.id.au, knut.omang@oracle.com, khilman@baylibre.com, julia.lawall@lip6.fr, joel@jms.id.au, jdike@addtoit.com, daniel@ffwll.ch, dan.j.williams@intel.com, dan.carpenter@oracle.com, amir73il@gmail.com, Tim.Bird@sony.com, Alexander.Levin@microsoft.com, linux-um@lists.infradead.org, linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, shuah@kernel.org, sboyd@kernel.org, robh@kernel.org, mcgrof@kernel.org, kieran.bingham@ideasonboard.com, keescook@google.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, frowand.list@gmail.com, brendanhiggins@google.com X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: logang@deltatee.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/17] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Tue, 02 Aug 2016 21:08:31 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on ale.deltatee.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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