Re: [PATCH v9 04/18] kunit: test: add kunit_stream a std::stream like logger

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 2:43 PM Brendan Higgins
<brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 2:14 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-01 11:59:57)
> > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 11:55 AM Brendan Higgins
> > > <brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 1:31 AM Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > To be honest I do not fully understand KUnit design. I am not
> > > > > completely sure how the tested code is isolated from the running
> > > > > system. Namely, I do not know if the tested code shares
> > > > > the same locks with the system running the test.
> > > >
> > > > No worries, I don't expect printk to be the hang up in those cases. It
> > > > sounds like KUnit has a long way to evolve before printk is going to
> > > > be a limitation.
> > >
> > > So Stephen, what do you think?
> > >
> > > Do you want me to go forward with the new kunit_assert API wrapping
> > > the string_stream as I have it now? Would you prefer to punt this to a
> > > later patch? Or would you prefer something else?
> > >
> >
> > I like the struct based approach. If anything, it can be adjusted to
> > make the code throw some records into a spinlock later on and delay the
> > formatting of the assertion if need be.
>
> That's a fair point.
>
> > Can you resend with that
> > approach? I don't think I'll have any more comments after that.

I sent a new revision, v12, that incorporates the kunit_assert stuff.

Let me know what you think!



[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux FS]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux