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@xxxxxxx> 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.
