On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 6:23 PM Frank Rowand <frowand.list(a)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
> 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
> 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
> will still include the patch that just converts everything over to
> KUnit without restructuring the test cases:
The link doesn't work for me (don't worry about that), so I'm assuming
[RFC v4 15/17] of: unittest: migrate tests to run on KUnit
The conversation on that patch ended after:
>> After adding patch 15, there are a lot of "unittest internal error"
> 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
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.