On 13/10/20 2:16 am, Brendan Higgins wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 03:28:49PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 01:37:10PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: >>> On Mon 2020-08-17 09:06:32, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: >>>> On 17/08/2020 06.30, Arpitha Raghunandan wrote: >>>>> Converts test lib/test_printf.c to KUnit. >>>>> More information about KUnit can be found at >>>>> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/dev-tools/kunit/index.html. >>>>> KUnit provides a common framework for unit tests in the kernel. >>>> >>>> So I can continue to build a kernel with some appropriate CONFIG set to >>>> y, boot it under virt-me, run dmesg and see if I broke printf? That's >>>> what I do now, and I don't want to have to start using some enterprisy >>>> framework. >>> >>> I had the same concern. I have tried it. > > Sorry you feel that way. Do you have any suggestions on how we can make > it seem less enterprisy? Seems like there are people here who are not a > fan of the output format, so of which we can fix here, some of which is > part of KTAP[1]. > >> Which raises an obvious question: did the people who convert this test this >> themselves? Looks like a janitor work in the area without understanding the >> area good enough. > > Looks to me like Arpitha ran it, but you are right, we don't have a lot > of familiarity with this area; we were treating it as "janitor work" as > you say. > > Our intention was just to take some existing tests and as non-invasively > as possible, get them to report using a common format, and maybe even > get some of the tests to follow a common pattern. > >> Probably I will NAK all those patches from now on, until it will be good commit >> messages and cover of risen aspects, including reference to before and after >> outcome for passed and failed test cases. > > Fair enough, hopefully we can address these issues in the next revision. > > One issue though, with the "before and after outcome" you are > referencing; are you referring to the issue that Petr pointed out in how > they are inconsistent: > > + original code: vsnprintf(buf, 6, "%pi4|%pI4", ...) wrote '127.0', expected '127-0' > + kunit code: vsnprintf(buf, 20, "%pi4|%pI4", ...) wrote '127.000.000.001|127', expected '127-000.000.001|127' > > (I think Rasmus addressed this.) Or are your referring to something > else? > >> Brendan, I guess the ball now on your side to prove this is good activity. > > And I see that we are off to a great start! :-) > > In all seriousness, I am really sorry about this. I kind of bungled this > up trying to go after too many of these conversions at once. > > Arpitha, can you get this follow up patch out? > Yes, I will work on this. > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/CY4PR13MB1175B804E31E502221BC8163FD830@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >
