On 2019-05-14 6:14 p.m., Frank Rowand wrote: > The high level issue is to provide reviewers with enough context to be > able to evaluate the patch series. That is probably not very obvious > at this point in the thread. At this point I was responding to Logan's > response to me that I should be reading Documentation to get a better > description of KUnit features. I _think_ that Logan thought that I > did not understand KUnit features and was trying to be helpful by > pointing out where I could get more information. If so, he was missing > my intended point had been that patch 0 should provide more information > to justify adding this feature. Honestly, I lost track of wait exactly your point was. And, in my opinion, Brendan has provided over and above the information required to justify Kunit's inclusion. > One thing that has become very apparent in the discussion of this patch > series is that some people do not understand that kselftest includes > in-kernel tests, not just userspace tests. As such, KUnit is an > additional implementation of "the same feature". (One can debate > exactly which in-kernel test features kselftest and KUnit provide, > and how much overlap exists or does not exist. So don't take "the > same feature" as my final opinion of how much overlap exists.) So > that is a key element to be noted and explained. >From my perspective, once we were actually pointed to the in-kernel kselftest code and took a look at it, it was clear there was no over-arching framework to them and that Kunit could be used to significantly improve those tests with a common structure. Based on my reading of the thread, Ted came to the same conclusion. I don't think we should block this feature from being merged, and for future work, someone can update the in-kernel kselftests to use the new framework. Logan
