Hi Yury,
On Sat, 2022-08-20 at 15:06 -0700, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 05:03:08PM +0200, Sander Vanheule wrote:
> > This series fixes the reported issues, and implements the suggested
> > improvements, for the version of the cpumask tests [1] that was merged
> > with commit c41e8866c28c ("lib/test: introduce cpumask KUnit test
> > suite").
> >
> > These changes include fixes for the tests, and better alignment with the
> > KUnit style guidelines.
>
> I wrote a couple comments, but the series looks OK to me in general.
> So for 2, 3 and 5:
> Acked-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> It's named as 'fix', but it fixes a test, and the kernel code itself
> looks correct. So, do you want to take it into 6.0-rc, or in 6.1?
>
> I'm OK to do it this way or another, but for later -rc's it may look
> too noisy. And I'm not sure where to put a threshold.
Broken tests are worse than no tests IMHO, so I would at least like patches 1
and 2 to be merged for 6.0-rc. I don't want people to end up with false
positives, like Maíra did, for an entire release cycle.
Preferably I would also like to see 3 in 6.0-rc, so no renames will be needed in
6.1 anymore. Not that I expect anything to depend on this symbol (or filename)
by then, but I feel it's better not to risk that by waiting for 6.1.
Patches 4 and 5 can go with 6.1, as far as I'm concerned. Especially as the mask
logging patch (4) may need some work still.
Best,
Sander
