On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:37:51AM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 03/31/2015 10:24 AM, Darren Hart wrote:
> > On 3/31/15, 8:32 AM, "Shuah Khan" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Daren,
> >>
> >> On 03/27/2015 04:17 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
> >>> Hi Shuah,
> >>>
> >>> This series begins the process of migrating my futextest tests into
> >>> kselftest.
> >>> I've started with only the functional tests, as the performance and
> >>> stress may
> >>> not be appropriate for kselftest as they stand.
> >>>
> >>> I cleaned up various complaints from checkpatch, but I ignored others
> >>> that would
> >>> require significant rework of the testcases, such as not using volatile
> >>> and not
> >>> creating new typedefs.
> >>>
> >>> The patches will follow, but I'm providing a pull request for your
> >>> convenience
> >>> as well.
> >>
> >> Thanks for acting on this so quickly after we talked about it at ELC.
> >> Just a quick note that I am going to get to this soon once I get the
> >> 4.1 content wrapped up. We can plan upon getting these into 4.2.
> >
> > OK. Michael E. provided some feedback which I can either incorporate and
> > respin, or I can send as a follow-on to your -next after you merge these.
> > Which do you prefer?
> >
...
> You can wait to re-do patches. I am planning to review the
> patch set later on this week. That way you can avoid re-spin
> just in case, I have other comments.
Hi Shuah,
Did you have any additional comments for the futex tests?
Thanks,
--
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
On 04/07/2015 10:12 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:37:51AM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
>> On 03/31/2015 10:24 AM, Darren Hart wrote:
>>> On 3/31/15, 8:32 AM, "Shuah Khan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Daren,
>>>>
>>>> On 03/27/2015 04:17 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
>>>>> Hi Shuah,
>>>>>
>>>>> This series begins the process of migrating my futextest tests into
>>>>> kselftest.
>>>>> I've started with only the functional tests, as the performance and
>>>>> stress may
>>>>> not be appropriate for kselftest as they stand.
>>>>>
>>>>> I cleaned up various complaints from checkpatch, but I ignored others
>>>>> that would
>>>>> require significant rework of the testcases, such as not using volatile
>>>>> and not
>>>>> creating new typedefs.
>>>>>
>>>>> The patches will follow, but I'm providing a pull request for your
>>>>> convenience
>>>>> as well.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for acting on this so quickly after we talked about it at ELC.
>>>> Just a quick note that I am going to get to this soon once I get the
>>>> 4.1 content wrapped up. We can plan upon getting these into 4.2.
>>>
>>> OK. Michael E. provided some feedback which I can either incorporate and
>>> respin, or I can send as a follow-on to your -next after you merge these.
>>> Which do you prefer?
>>>
>
> ...
>
>> You can wait to re-do patches. I am planning to review the
>> patch set later on this week. That way you can avoid re-spin
>> just in case, I have other comments.
>
> Hi Shuah,
>
> Did you have any additional comments for the futex tests?
>
> Thanks,
>
Sorry Daren. I got called away on a family emergency. The patch
looks good to me and I don't have any additional comments.
Assume these get pulled in for 4.2 release. I will get to them
soon once the 4.1-rc1 is out.
thanks,
-- Shuah
--
Shuah Khan
Sr. Linux Kernel Developer
Open Source Innovation Group
Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley)
[email protected] | (970) 217-8978
On 4/8/15, 10:41 PM, "Shuah Khan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 04/07/2015 10:12 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:37:51AM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
>>> On 03/31/2015 10:24 AM, Darren Hart wrote:
>>>> On 3/31/15, 8:32 AM, "Shuah Khan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Daren,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 03/27/2015 04:17 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Shuah,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This series begins the process of migrating my futextest tests into
>>>>>> kselftest.
>>>>>> I've started with only the functional tests, as the performance and
>>>>>> stress may
>>>>>> not be appropriate for kselftest as they stand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I cleaned up various complaints from checkpatch, but I ignored
>>>>>>others
>>>>>> that would
>>>>>> require significant rework of the testcases, such as not using
>>>>>>volatile
>>>>>> and not
>>>>>> creating new typedefs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The patches will follow, but I'm providing a pull request for your
>>>>>> convenience
>>>>>> as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for acting on this so quickly after we talked about it at ELC.
>>>>> Just a quick note that I am going to get to this soon once I get the
>>>>> 4.1 content wrapped up. We can plan upon getting these into 4.2.
>>>>
>>>> OK. Michael E. provided some feedback which I can either incorporate
>>>>and
>>>> respin, or I can send as a follow-on to your -next after you merge
>>>>these.
>>>> Which do you prefer?
>>>>
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> You can wait to re-do patches. I am planning to review the
>>> patch set later on this week. That way you can avoid re-spin
>>> just in case, I have other comments.
>>
>> Hi Shuah,
>>
>> Did you have any additional comments for the futex tests?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>
>
>Sorry Daren. I got called away on a family emergency. The patch
>looks good to me and I don't have any additional comments.
No problem, hope things are alright.
>
>Assume these get pulled in for 4.2 release. I will get to them
>soon once the 4.1-rc1 is out.
You had some initial comments, do you want me to tend to those and resend,
or will you pull as is and have me follow-up - either is fine, just let me
know what you prefer.
Thanks,
--
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center