On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 4:05 AM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 12:50:53PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 04:01:09PM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote: > > > ## TLDR > > > > > > I rebased the last patchset on 5.1-rc7 in hopes that we can get this in > > > 5.2. > > > > That might be rushing it, normally trees are already closed now for > > 5.2-rc1 if 5.1-final comes out this Sunday. > > > > > Shuah, I think you, Greg KH, and myself talked off thread, and we agreed > > > we would merge through your tree when the time came? Am I remembering > > > correctly? > > > > No objection from me. > > > > Let me go review the latest round of patches now. > > Overall, looks good to me, and provides a framework we can build on. > I'm a bit annoyed at the reliance on uml at the moment, but we can work > on that in the future :) Eh, I mostly fixed that. I removed the KUnit framework's reliance on UML i.e. the actual tests now run on any architecture. The only UML dependent bit is the KUnit wrapper scripts, which could be made to work to support other architectures pretty trivially. The only limitation here is that it would be dependent on the actual workflow you are using. In anycase, if you are comfortable reading the results in the kernel logs, then there is no dependence on UML. (I should probably provide some documentation on that...) > > Thanks for sticking with this, now the real work begins... I don't doubt it. > > Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Does this cover all the patches in this set? Thanks!
