On Fri Apr 26, 2024 at 5:28 PM EEST, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 4/16/24 07:15, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Tue Apr 16, 2024 at 8:42 AM EEST, Huang, Kai wrote: > > Yes, exactly. I'd take one week break and cycle the kselftest part > > internally a bit as I said my previous response. I'm sure that there > > is experise inside Intel how to implement it properly. I.e. take some > > time to find the right person, and wait as long as that person has a > > bit of bandwidth to go through the test and suggest modifications. > > Folks, I worry that this series is getting bogged down in the selftests. > Yes, selftests are important. But getting _some_ tests in the kernel > is substantially more important than getting perfect tests. > > I don't think Haitao needs to "cycle" this back inside Intel. The problem with the tests was that they are hard to run anything else than Ubuntu (and perhaps Debian). It is hopefully now taken care of. Selftests do not have to be perfect but at minimum they need to be runnable. I need ret-test the latest series because it is possible that I did not have right flags (I was travelling few days thus have not done it yet). BR, Jarkko
