On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 10:59:49 +0900 Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu...@hitachi.com> wrote: > > Both of these have valid reasons staying in the kernel and I don't see > > either as dead weight. Is there a maintenance issue with keeping it in > > the kernel? There doesn't seem to be much done to it. It seems > > untouched for over a year, and that was to add support for multiple > > buffers. > > Keeping it has no issue. But it's much easier to expand the test > in userspace than the kernel code. I'll add more feature tests in > kselftest, but not in this code. This means that this startup > test code will get behind.
And that's exactly what I expect you to do. I have lots of tests to test ftrace, but what gets tested at kernel startup is just a bare minimum, and that's all it needs to be. I don't expect you to extend the start up self tests. That should be only done for the scripts. But we have this start up test and I don't see a reason to get rid of it. If anything, it gives me warm fuzzies in my stomach when I see it pass :-) The start up tests in the kernel should really just be the basic of the basic tests, that give a small sanity check that a change didn't totally screw things up. Can you send a new patch that doesn't remove the start up test? Thanks! -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
