On Tue, 03 Dec 2024, Maxime Ripard <mripard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 02, 2024 at 05:44:27PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: >> >> It's super tempting for people to just get their jobs done. If doing >> >> the right thing adds yet another hurdle, we may see more stuff being >> >> added in drivers instead of drm core. >> > >> > I really enjoy hidden threats. >> >> None were implied. That's your interpretation of what I honestly think >> is a plausible outcome. > > I obviously misinterpreted what you were saying then. Sorry for the > whole tone of that mail. Don't worry about it. Likewise, my mail wasn't a stellar example of communication either. Sorry about that. Let's move on. >> I try to push people towards contributing to drm core instead of >> drivers, and it's not always easy as it is. It's just a guess, but >> I'll bet the majority of drm contributors have never run kunit tests >> themselves. > > Right, but I don't think it's worth worrying over either. If one stops > contributing because they are afraid of running one documented command > that takes a few seconds, they would have done so at any other obstacle. > We have much bigger barriers of entry, at several levels. > > All of them are here for a good reason, and because we have collectively > judged that the trade-off between adding a barrier and increasing the > quality of the framework was worth it. > > I believe tests are worth it too. > > But anyway, it's really not what I had in mind. Would you mind drafting some ground rules for what you think the requirements for kunit tests should be? What's the bare minimum, what's the goal? BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel
