On 2019-05-14 6:14 p.m., Frank Rowand wrote:
The high level issue is to provide reviewers with enough context to be able to evaluate the patch series. That is probably not very obvious at this point in the thread. At this point I was responding to Logan's response to me that I should be reading Documentation to get a better description of KUnit features. I _think_ that Logan thought that I did not understand KUnit features and was trying to be helpful by pointing out where I could get more information. If so, he was missing my intended point had been that patch 0 should provide more information to justify adding this feature.
Honestly, I lost track of wait exactly your point was. And, in my opinion, Brendan has provided over and above the information required to justify Kunit's inclusion.
One thing that has become very apparent in the discussion of this patch series is that some people do not understand that kselftest includes in-kernel tests, not just userspace tests. As such, KUnit is an additional implementation of "the same feature". (One can debate exactly which in-kernel test features kselftest and KUnit provide, and how much overlap exists or does not exist. So don't take "the same feature" as my final opinion of how much overlap exists.) So that is a key element to be noted and explained.
From my perspective, once we were actually pointed to the in-kernel
kselftest code and took a look at it, it was clear there was no over-arching framework to them and that Kunit could be used to significantly improve those tests with a common structure. Based on my reading of the thread, Ted came to the same conclusion.
I don't think we should block this feature from being merged, and for future work, someone can update the in-kernel kselftests to use the new framework.
Logan