On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 8:06 PM Michael Ellerman <mpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > The test currently is a bunch of checks (implemented using BUG_ON()) > > that can be built into the kernel or as a module. > > > > Convert it to a KUnit test, which can also run in both modes. > > From a user's perspective, this change adds a CONFIG_KUNIT=y dep and > > changes the output format of the test [1]. The test itself is the same. > ... > > I don't know why I got Cc'ed on this :), but I gave it a quick test anyway. > > Seems to work fine on a Power9. > I also flipped some of the conditionals to make sure failure is detected > correctly. > > Tested-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (powerpc) Thanks! You were just the last person to have made a real change to this file [1]. The people signing off no commits seemed inconsistent and get_maintainers didn't give anything back. commit ffba19ccae8d98beb0a17345a0b1ee9e415b23b8 Author: Michael Ellerman <mpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri Jul 14 14:49:41 2017 -0700 > > > > Meta: > > 1. this patch applies on top of the kunit branch, > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/shuah/linux-kselftest.git/?h=kunit > > > > 2. checkpatch complains about aligning with parens, but it wants me to > > indent the `#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64` which seems inappropriate in context. > > > > 3. this file doesn't seem to have a clear maintainer, so I assume this > > conversion is fine to go through the kunit branch. > > I think you want to at least Cc the atomic folks: > > ATOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE > M: Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx> > M: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > R: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@xxxxxxxxx> > R: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> > L: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > S: Maintained Ah, thanks for the pointer. I'll see if I can add F: lib/atomic64_test.c to that entry so this files owners get tracked properly. Daniel
