On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 6:23 PM Frank Rowand frowand.list@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/4/19 3:01 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 1:38 PM Brendan Higgins
< snip >
Someone suggested I should send the next revision out as "PATCH" instead of "RFC" since there seems to be general consensus about everything at a high level, with a couple exceptions.
At this time I am planning on sending the next revision out as "[PATCH v1 00/NN] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework". Initially I wasn't sure if the next revision should be "[PATCH v1 ...]" or "[PATCH v5 ...]". Please let me know if you have a strong objection to the former.
In the next revision, I will be dropping the last two of three patches for the DT unit tests as there doesn't seem to be enough features currently available to justify the heavy refactoring I did; however, I
Thank you.
will still include the patch that just converts everything over to KUnit without restructuring the test cases: https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/2/14/1133
The link doesn't work for me (don't worry about that), so I'm assuming this is:
[RFC v4 15/17] of: unittest: migrate tests to run on KUnit
That's correct.
The conversation on that patch ended after:
After adding patch 15, there are a lot of "unittest internal error" messages.
Yeah, I meant to ask you about that. I thought it was due to a change you made, but after further examination, just now, I found it was my fault. Sorry for not mentioning that anywhere. I will fix it in v5.
It is not worth my time to look at patch 15 when it is that broken. So I have not done any review of it.
Right, I didn't expect you to, we were still discussing things on RFC v3 at the time. I think I got you comments on v3 in a very short time frame around sending out v4; hence why your comments were not addressed.
So no, I think you are still in the RFC stage unless you drop patch 15.
Noted. I might split that out into a separate RFC then.
I should have the next revision out in a week or so.
Cheers!