On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 12:53:36PM -0400, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
Hi all, now that the printf and scanf series have been taken via kees' tree[0] and sent in for v6.15-rc1[1], I wonder if we'd like to revisit this discussion. As I understand it, the primary objections to moving bitmap to KUnit were: - Unclear benefits. - Source churn. - Extra dependencies for benchmarks. Hopefully David's enumeration of the benefits of KUnit was compelling. Regarding source churn: it is inevitable, but I did pay attention to this and minimized the diff where possible. The last point is trickiest, because KUnit doesn't have first-class benchmark support, but nor is there a blessed benchmark facility in the kernel generally. I'd prefer not to tie this series to distros enabling KUNIT_CONFIG by default, which will take $time. I think the most sensible thing we can do - if we accept that KUnit has benefits to offer - is to split test_bitmap.c into benchmark_bitmap.c and bitmap_kunit.c. Please let me know your thoughts.
Sure, no problem. I asked you to answer to 4 very simple and specific questions. You didn't answer any of them. David sent a lengthy email that doesn't address them, either. None of you guys submitted anything to bitmaps - neither in library, nor in tests. Your opinion about what is good for bitmap development and what's not is purely theoretical. Real contributors never concerned about current testing model. I think that you don't care about bitmaps. If bitmaps testing will get broken one day, or more complicated, you will not come to help. If I'm wrong and you are willing to contribute, you're warmly welcome! I always encourage people to increase testing coverage. If you'd like to add new cases to existing tests - I'll be happy. If you'd like to add completely new tests based on KUNITs or whatever else - I'll be happy just as well. Thanks, Yury
