Message ID | cover.1661007338.git.sander@svanheule.net (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | cpumask: KUnit test suite fixes and improvements | expand |
On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 05:03:08PM +0200, Sander Vanheule wrote: > This series fixes the reported issues, and implements the suggested > improvements, for the version of the cpumask tests [1] that was merged > with commit c41e8866c28c ("lib/test: introduce cpumask KUnit test > suite"). > > These changes include fixes for the tests, and better alignment with the > KUnit style guidelines. I wrote a couple comments, but the series looks OK to me in general. So for 2, 3 and 5: Acked-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com> It's named as 'fix', but it fixes a test, and the kernel code itself looks correct. So, do you want to take it into 6.0-rc, or in 6.1? I'm OK to do it this way or another, but for later -rc's it may look too noisy. And I'm not sure where to put a threshold. Thanks, Yury > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/85217b5de6d62257313ad7fde3e1969421acad75.1659077534.git.sander@svanheule.net/ > > Changes since v1: > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/cover.1660068429.git.sander@svanheule.net/ > - Collect tags > - Rewrite commit message of "lib/test_cpumask: drop cpu_possible_mask > full test" > - Also CC KUnit mailing list > > Sander Vanheule (5): > lib/test_cpumask: drop cpu_possible_mask full test > lib/test_cpumask: fix cpu_possible_mask last test > lib/test_cpumask: follow KUnit style guidelines > lib/cpumask_kunit: log mask contents > lib/cpumask_kunit: add tests file to MAINTAINERS > > MAINTAINERS | 1 + > lib/Kconfig.debug | 7 +++++-- > lib/Makefile | 2 +- > lib/{test_cpumask.c => cpumask_kunit.c} | 13 +++++++++++-- > 4 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > rename lib/{test_cpumask.c => cpumask_kunit.c} (90%) > > -- > 2.37.2
Hi Yury, On Sat, 2022-08-20 at 15:06 -0700, Yury Norov wrote: > On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 05:03:08PM +0200, Sander Vanheule wrote: > > This series fixes the reported issues, and implements the suggested > > improvements, for the version of the cpumask tests [1] that was merged > > with commit c41e8866c28c ("lib/test: introduce cpumask KUnit test > > suite"). > > > > These changes include fixes for the tests, and better alignment with the > > KUnit style guidelines. > > I wrote a couple comments, but the series looks OK to me in general. > So for 2, 3 and 5: > Acked-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com> > > It's named as 'fix', but it fixes a test, and the kernel code itself > looks correct. So, do you want to take it into 6.0-rc, or in 6.1? > > I'm OK to do it this way or another, but for later -rc's it may look > too noisy. And I'm not sure where to put a threshold. Broken tests are worse than no tests IMHO, so I would at least like patches 1 and 2 to be merged for 6.0-rc. I don't want people to end up with false positives, like MaĆra did, for an entire release cycle. Preferably I would also like to see 3 in 6.0-rc, so no renames will be needed in 6.1 anymore. Not that I expect anything to depend on this symbol (or filename) by then, but I feel it's better not to risk that by waiting for 6.1. Patches 4 and 5 can go with 6.1, as far as I'm concerned. Especially as the mask logging patch (4) may need some work still. Best, Sander