On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 9:55 AM Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 06:18:04PM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote: > > > Let's talk about current state. Right now kunit is in linux-next and > > > we want to add a few more tests. We will have to coordinate the effort. > > > Once kunit get into mainline, then the need for this coordination goes > > > down. > > > > Sure, I was just thinking that getting other people to write the tests > > would be better. Since not only is it then useful to someone else, it > > provides the best possible exercise of KUnit. > > Well, one thing we *can* do is if (a) if we can create a kselftest > branch which we know is stable and won't change, and (b) we can get > assurances that Linus *will* accept that branch during the next merge > window, those subsystems which want to use kself test can simply pull > it into their tree. Yeah, I can't think of any reason that you haven't outlined already why that might not work, but that seems kind of like circumventing Linus. > We've done this before in the file system world, when there has been > some common set of changes needed to improve, say, Direct I/O, where > the changes are put into a standalone branch, say, in the xfs tree, > and those file systems which need it as a building block can pull it > into their tree, and then add the changes needed to use those changes > into their file system git tree. These changes are generally not > terribly controversial, and we've not had to worry about people want > to bikeshed the changes. > > There is a risk with doing this of course, which is that if the branch > *is* controversial, or gets bike-shedded for some reason, then Linus > gets upset and any branches which depended on said branch will get > rejected at the next merge window. Which is the requirement for (a) > and (b) above. Presumably, the fact that people were unwilling to let > Kunit land during this merge window might will *because* we think more > changes might be pending? My understanding, based on what I have been told, is that we were simply unlucky with the timing when Linus pulled the branch in the first week of the 5.4 merge window (Friday), such that once I fixed the directory naming issue, the updated changes didn't spend enough time in linux-next. And now with this issue fixed and KUnit back in linux-next, if nothing interesting happens between now and 5.5, it will be accepted in the 5.5 merge window. I do not think that anyone is expecting anymore changes before merging. Shuah, Linus, is my understanding correct? > The other thing I suppose I can do is to let the ext4 kunit tests land > in ext4 tree, but with the necessary #ifdef's around things like > "#include <kunit/test.h>" so that the build won't blow up w/o kunit > changes being in the tree that I'm building. It means I won't be able > to run the tests without creating a test integration branch and > merging in kunit by hand, which will super-annoying, of course. And > if some of the bike-shedding is in Kunit's interfaces, then that > becomes problematic as well, since any tests that are in ext4.git tree > might change if people want to rename Kunit's publically exported > functions (for example). Yeah, that seems even worse. I'm sorry to have caused this frustration. > > Hey Ted, do you know if that ext4 timestamp test can go in through > > linux-kselftest? It seemed fairly self-contained. Or is that what you > > were saying wouldn't work for you? > > Well, I was hoping that we might start creating more tests beyond just > the ext4 timestamp tests.... Okay, that's what I thought (and what I hoped) you were saying :-) I hope we can figure out something that will work for you. Or otherwise that you won't mind waiting until 5.5. Sorry
