[PATCH v18 00/19] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework

Brendan Higgins brendanhiggins at google.com
Fri Oct 4 22:27:14 UTC 2019

On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 03:59:10PM -0600, shuah wrote:
> On 10/4/19 3:42 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 2:39 PM Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso at mit.edu> wrote:
> > > 
> > > This question is primarily directed at Shuah and Linus....
> > > 
> > > What's the current status of the kunit series now that Brendan has
> > > moved it out of the top-level kunit directory as Linus has requested?
> > 
> The move happened smack in the middle of merge window and landed in
> linux-next towards the end of the merge window.
> > We seemed to decide to just wait for 5.5, but there is nothing that
> > looks to block that. And I encouraged Shuah to find more kunit cases
> > for when it _does_ get merged.
> > 
> Right. I communicated that to Brendan that we could work on adding more
> kunit based tests which would help get more mileage on the kunit.
> > So if the kunit branch is stable, and people want to start using it
> > for their unit tests, then I think that would be a good idea, and then
> > during the 5.5 merge window we'll not just get the infrastructure,
> > we'll get a few more users too and not just examples.

I was planning on holding off on accepting more tests/changes until
KUnit is in torvalds/master. As much as I would like to go around
promoting it, I don't really want to promote too much complexity in a
non-upstream branch before getting it upstream because I don't want to
risk adding something that might cause it to get rejected again.

To be clear, I can understand from your perspective why getting more
tests/usage before accepting it is a good thing. The more people that
play around with it, the more likely that someone will find an issue
with it, and more likely that what is accepted into torvalds/master is
of high quality.

However, if I encourage arbitrary tests/improvements into my KUnit
branch, it further diverges away from torvalds/master, and is more
likely that there will be a merge conflict or issue that is not related
to the core KUnit changes that will cause the whole thing to be
rejected again in v5.5.

I don't know. I guess we could maybe address that situation by splitting
up the pull request into features and tests when we go to send it in,
but that seems to invite a lot of unnecessary complexity. I actually
already had some other tests/changes ready to send for review, but was
holding off until the initial set of patches mad it in.

Looking forward to hearing other people's thoughts.

More information about the dri-devel mailing list