On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 6:41 PM Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 02:53:10PM +0800, David Gow wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 2:02 PM Linus Torvalds > > <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > ... > > > > Don't send me any more rename patches until your tools can actually do renames. > > > My other thought is that this sort of patchset really makes more sense > > to push through the kselftest/kunit branch anyway, as all of the > > changes were really more KUnit related than anything else. Does it > > make sense to re-submit this that way? > > I think it makes sense because this is driven by rules set up by kselftest/kunit. > My main concern here is to have cmdline_kunit in the tree (it is a new file). > Renaming is up to you, I just wanted to be consistent with names and KUnit > documentation. It looks like the cmdline_kunit changes have been merged now, so it's a relief that those weren't held up: I agree that they're the more important changes. I do think renaming things to match the new convention is a good idea (so thanks again for doing that), but it's not exactly an urgent fix. My preference is that these get added to one of the kunit branches in the kselftest repo, so they can be picked up when convenient. This should just be the first three patches in this series: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20201112180732.75589-1-andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ I'd expect those to still apply pretty cleanly, but I haven't actually checked yet. Cheers, -- David
