On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 02:38:48PM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> +Bjorn Helgaas
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 12:41 AM Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 11:36:18AM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 02:05:05PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > On
+Bjorn Helgaas
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 12:41 AM Daniel Vetter wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 11:36:18AM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 02:05:05PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 8:04 AM Brendan Higgins
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon,
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 11:36:18AM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 02:05:05PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 8:04 AM Brendan Higgins
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 04:44:51PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > On Sat, May 11, 2019
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
On 5/14/19 1:38 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 03:13:40PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 5/10/19 9:17 AM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2019-05-09 11:18 p.m., Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>
YES, kselftest has in-kernel tests. (Excuse the shouting...)
>>>
>>> Cool.
On 5/11/19 10:33 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 02:12:40PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> However, the reply is incorrect. Kselftest in-kernel tests (which
>> is the context here) can be configured as built in instead of as
>> a module, and built in a UML kernel. The UML
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 05:26:47PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 5/11/19 10:33 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 02:12:40PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> >> However, the reply is incorrect. Kselftest in-kernel tests (which
> >> is the context here) can be configured as built
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 02:52:59PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
Sorry, I forgot to get back to this thread.
> On 5/9/19 3:20 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2019-05-09 3:42 p.m., Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 11:12:12AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> >>>
> >>> "My
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 02:05:05PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 8:04 AM Brendan Higgins
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 04:44:51PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 01:33:44PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 10, 2019 at
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 8:04 AM Brendan Higgins
wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 04:44:51PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 01:33:44PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 02:12:40PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> > > > However, the reply is incorrect.
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 03:13:40PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 5/10/19 9:17 AM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2019-05-09 11:18 p.m., Frank Rowand wrote:
> >
> >> YES, kselftest has in-kernel tests. (Excuse the shouting...)
> >
> > Cool. From my cursory look, in my opinion, these
On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 05:58:49PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> Hi Ted,
>
> On 5/7/19 10:22 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 10:01:19AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> Not very helpful to cut the text here, plus not explicitly indicating that
> text was cut (yes, I know the ">>>" will
On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 08:43:23AM +0200, Knut Omang wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-05-10 at 14:59 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> > On 5/10/19 3:23 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > >> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 7:49 AM Knut Omang wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, 2019-05-09 at 22:18 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> >
On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 08:17:47AM +0200, Knut Omang wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-05-10 at 15:18 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> > On 5/10/19 1:54 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 5:13 AM Knut Omang wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 2019-05-10 at 03:23 -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > On
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 04:44:51PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 01:33:44PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 02:12:40PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> > > However, the reply is incorrect. Kselftest in-kernel tests (which
> > > is the context here) can
On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 01:33:44PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 02:12:40PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> > However, the reply is incorrect. Kselftest in-kernel tests (which
> > is the context here) can be configured as built in instead of as
> > a module, and built in a
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 02:12:40PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> However, the reply is incorrect. Kselftest in-kernel tests (which
> is the context here) can be configured as built in instead of as
> a module, and built in a UML kernel. The UML kernel can boot,
> running the in-kernel tests
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 5:13 AM Knut Omang wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-05-10 at 03:23 -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 7:49 AM Knut Omang wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 2019-05-09 at 22:18 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> > > > > On 5/9/19 4:40 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > >
On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 10:11:01PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> >> You *can* run in-kernel test using modules; but there is no framework
> >> for the in-kernel code found in the test modules, which means each of
> >> the in-kernel code has to create their own in-kernel test
> >> infrastructure.
>
> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 8:02 AM Brendan Higgins
> wrote:
> >
> > ## TLDR
> >
> > I rebased the last patchset on 5.1-rc7 in hopes that we can get this in
> > 5.2.
> >
> > Shuah, I think you, Greg KH, and myself talked off thread, and we agreed
> > we would merge through your tree when the time
> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 7:49 AM Knut Omang wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2019-05-09 at 22:18 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> > > On 5/9/19 4:40 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 2019-05-09 5:30 p.m., Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > > >> On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 04:20:05PM -0600, Logan
Hi Ted,
I'll try answering this again.
The first time I was a little flippant in part of my answer because I
thought your comments somewhat flippant. This time I'll provide a
more complete answer.
On 5/8/19 7:13 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 5/8/19 6:58 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>> On Wed, May
On 5/9/19 4:40 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>
>
> On 2019-05-09 5:30 p.m., Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>> On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 04:20:05PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>>>
>>> The second item, arguably, does have significant overlap with kselftest.
>>> Whether you are running short tests in a light
On Thu, 2019-05-09 at 22:18 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 5/9/19 4:40 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2019-05-09 5:30 p.m., Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 04:20:05PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The second item, arguably, does have significant overlap
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 7:49 AM Knut Omang wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2019-05-09 at 22:18 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> > On 5/9/19 4:40 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2019-05-09 5:30 p.m., Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > >> On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 04:20:05PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> >
On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 05:40:48PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> Based on some of the other commenters, I was under the impression that
> kselftests had in-kernel tests but I'm not sure where or if they exist. If
> they do exists, it seems like it would make sense to convert those to kunit
>
On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 04:20:05PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> The second item, arguably, does have significant overlap with kselftest.
> Whether you are running short tests in a light weight UML environment or
> higher level tests in an heavier VM the two could be using the same
>
On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 11:12:12AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>
>"My understanding is that the intent of KUnit is to avoid booting a kernel
> on
>real hardware or in a virtual machine. That seems to be a matter of
> semantics
>to me because isn't invoking a UML Linux just running
On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 7:00 PM wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Theodore Ts'o
> >
> > On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 01:52:15PM +0200, Knut Omang wrote:
> > > 1) Tests that exercises typically algorithmic or intricate, complex
> > >code with relatively few outside dependencies, or
On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 01:52:15PM +0200, Knut Omang wrote:
> 1) Tests that exercises typically algorithmic or intricate, complex
>code with relatively few outside dependencies, or where the dependencies
>are considered worth mocking, such as the basics of container data
>structures
On 5/8/19 6:44 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 05:58:49PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>
>> If KUnit is added to the kernel, and a subsystem that I am submitting
>> code for has chosen to use KUnit instead of kselftest, then yes, I do
>> *have* to use KUnit if my submission needs
On 5/8/19 6:58 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 05:43:35PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> kselftest provides a mechanism for in-kernel tests via modules. For
>> example, see:
>>
>> tools/testing/selftests/vm/run_vmtests invokes:
>> tools/testing/selftests/vm/test_vmalloc.sh
On 5/7/19 1:01 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 08:14:12PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 5/1/19 4:01 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>> ## TLDR
>>>
>>> I rebased the last patchset on 5.1-rc7 in hopes that we can get this in
>>> 5.2.
>>>
>>> Shuah, I think you, Greg KH, and myself talked
Hi Ted,
On 5/7/19 10:22 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 10:01:19AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
Not very helpful to cut the text here, plus not explicitly indicating that
text was cut (yes, I know the ">>>" will be a clue for the careful reader),
losing the set up for my question.
On 5/7/19 8:23 AM, shuah wrote:
> On 5/7/19 2:01 AM, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 08:14:12PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>> On 5/1/19 4:01 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
## TLDR
I rebased the last patchset on 5.1-rc7 in hopes that we can get this in
5.2.
On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 07:13:59PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> > If you want to use vice grips as a hammer, screwdriver, monkey wrench,
> > etc. there's nothing stopping you from doing that. But it's not fair
> > to object to other people who might want to use better tools.
> >
> > The reality
On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 05:43:35PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> kselftest provides a mechanism for in-kernel tests via modules. For
> example, see:
>
> tools/testing/selftests/vm/run_vmtests invokes:
> tools/testing/selftests/vm/test_vmalloc.sh
> loads module:
> test_vmalloc
On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 05:58:49PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>
> If KUnit is added to the kernel, and a subsystem that I am submitting
> code for has chosen to use KUnit instead of kselftest, then yes, I do
> *have* to use KUnit if my submission needs to contain a test for the
> code unless I
> On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 10:01:19AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > My understanding is that the intent of KUnit is to avoid booting a kernel
> > > on
> > > real hardware or in a virtual machine. That seems to be a matter of
> > > semantics
> > > to me because isn't invoking a UML Linux just
On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 10:01:19AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > My understanding is that the intent of KUnit is to avoid booting a kernel on
> > real hardware or in a virtual machine. That seems to be a matter of
> > semantics
> > to me because isn't invoking a UML Linux just running the Linux
On 5/7/19 2:01 AM, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 08:14:12PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
On 5/1/19 4:01 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
## TLDR
I rebased the last patchset on 5.1-rc7 in hopes that we can get this in
5.2.
Shuah, I think you, Greg KH, and myself talked off thread, and we
On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 08:14:12PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 5/1/19 4:01 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > ## TLDR
> >
> > I rebased the last patchset on 5.1-rc7 in hopes that we can get this in
> > 5.2.
> >
> > Shuah, I think you, Greg KH, and myself talked off thread, and we agreed
> > we
On 5/1/19 4:01 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> ## TLDR
>
> I rebased the last patchset on 5.1-rc7 in hopes that we can get this in
> 5.2.
>
> Shuah, I think you, Greg KH, and myself talked off thread, and we agreed
> we would merge through your tree when the time came? Am I remembering
> correctly?
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.
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 7:04 AM shuah wrote:
>
> On 5/2/19 4:50 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 04:01:09PM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> >> ## TLDR
> >>
> >> I rebased the last patchset on 5.1-rc7 in hopes that we can get this in
> >> 5.2.
> >
> > That might be rushing it,
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 4:05 AM Greg KH wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 12:50:53PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 04:01:09PM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > > ## TLDR
> > >
> > > I rebased the last patchset on 5.1-rc7 in hopes that we can get this in
> > > 5.2.
> >
> > That
On 5/2/19 4:50 AM, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 04:01:09PM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
## TLDR
I rebased the last patchset on 5.1-rc7 in hopes that we can get this in
5.2.
That might be rushing it, normally trees are already closed now for
5.2-rc1 if 5.1-final comes out this
On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 12:50:53PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 04:01:09PM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > ## TLDR
> >
> > I rebased the last patchset on 5.1-rc7 in hopes that we can get this in
> > 5.2.
>
> That might be rushing it, normally trees are already closed now for
On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 04:01:09PM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> ## TLDR
>
> I rebased the last patchset on 5.1-rc7 in hopes that we can get this in
> 5.2.
That might be rushing it, normally trees are already closed now for
5.2-rc1 if 5.1-final comes out this Sunday.
> Shuah, I think you,
## TLDR
I rebased the last patchset on 5.1-rc7 in hopes that we can get this in
5.2.
Shuah, I think you, Greg KH, and myself talked off thread, and we agreed
we would merge through your tree when the time came? Am I remembering
correctly?
## Background
This patch set proposes KUnit, a
50 matches
Mail list logo
