MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20150428125456.GC30852@infradead.org>
References: <20150418013256.25237.96403.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com>
	<20150418013541.25237.36797.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com>
	<20150428125456.GC30852@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 12:35:30 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4gRokFue0-2yagno9hCTKp76a1qEuL3-avYTQ2CnmmFtw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Linux-nvdimm] [PATCH 05/21] nfit-test: manufactured NFITs for
 interface development
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@ml01.01.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1159
Lines: 26

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 5:54 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
> Eww, the --wrap stuff is too ugly too live.

Since when are unit tests pretty?

> Just implement the
> implemenetation of persistent nvdimms into qemu where it belongs.

Ugh, no, I'm not keen to introduce yet another roadblock to running
the tests and another degree of freedom for things to bit rot.  It
will never be pretty, but the implementation at least gets slightly
cleaner in v2 with the removal of the wrapping for nd_blk_do_io().
It's also worth noting that 0day is currently running our unit tests.

> Note that having a not actually persistent implementation that register
> with the subsystems which doesn't need these hacks still sounds ok to
> me, altough I suspect most users would much prefer the virtualization
> based variant.

KVM NFIT enabling is happening, but I don't think it is useful as a
unit test vehicle.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/