On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:33:35 -0700 Michel Lespinasse <walken@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Ah, I did not realize we had a precedent for in-tree kernel test modules. > > hm, well, just because that's what we do now doesn't mean that it was a > good idea ;) These things arrive as a result of individual developers > doing stuff in their little directories and no particular thought was > put into overall structure. > > It could be that it would be better to put all these tests into a > central place, rather than sprinkling them around the tree. If so, > then your patch can lead the way, and we (ie: I) prod past and future > developers into getting with the program. > > otoh, perhaps in-kernel test modules will rely on headers and constants > which are private to the implementation directory. So perhaps > sprinkled-everywhere is the best approach. I think it is at least reasonable. Where we could improve, however, would be on the Kconfig side of things. >> I don't think my proposal was significantly better than this >> precedent, so I'll just adjust my patch to conform to it: >> - move rbtree_test.c to lib/ >> - modify just lib/Makefile and lib/Kconfig.debug to get the module built. >> >> Will send a replacement patch for this (so you can drop that one patch >> from the stack and replace it with) > > OK, you could do that too. That way you avoid the problem and we can > worry about it later (if ever), as a separate activity. Going to attach as a reply to this email. -- Michel "Walken" Lespinasse A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>