On Thu, 7 Nov 2024 at 15:34, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Andrew, > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 10:17 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 09:33:55 +0100 Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > This conflicts with "[PATCH] m68k: defconfig: Update defconfigs for > > > > v6.12-rc1"[1]. Of course the proper way forward would be to add > > > > "default KUNIT_ALL_TESTS" to all tests that still lack it, so I can > > > > just never queue that patch ;-) > > > > > > What's the status of this series? I am asking because I am wondering if > > > I should queue [1] for v6.13, or just drop it, and send a patch to add > > > "default KUNIT_ALL_TESTS" instead. > > > > > > I saw the email from Andrew stating he applied it to his tree[2], > > > but that seems to have been dropped silently, and never made it into > > > linux-next? > > > > Yes, sorry. Believe it or not, I do try to avoid spraying out too many > > emails. David will recall better than I, but things got messy. > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20241009162719.0adaea37@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx was > > perhaps the cause. > > Fair enough. > > > I'm sure David can being us up to date. > > Probably the best solution is to respin after v6.13-rc1, to be included > in v6.13-rc2. > Sorry about the delay, for some reason these were getting caught in my spam filter... Yeah, I think that's probably best. I'll go through and do a new version post rc1. In general, my preferred option is to use the 'default KUNIT_ALL_TESTS' where possible. I'm sure there'll be some tests where it makes sense to _not_ enable them by default, but we should where we can. Ultimately, it's up to the test maintainer, though. -- David -- David
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
