Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
To:     Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>,
        frowand.list@gmail.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        keescook@google.com, kieran.bingham@ideasonboard.com,
        mcgrof@kernel.org, robh@kernel.org, sboyd@kernel.org,
        shuah@kernel.org
Cc:     devicetree@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
        kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, linux-um@lists.infradead.org,
        Alexander.Levin@microsoft.com, Tim.Bird@sony.com,
        amir73il@gmail.com, dan.carpenter@oracle.com,
        dan.j.williams@intel.com, daniel@ffwll.ch, jdike@addtoit.com,
        joel@jms.id.au, julia.lawall@lip6.fr, khilman@baylibre.com,
        knut.omang@oracle.com, mpe@ellerman.id.au, pmladek@suse.com,
        richard@nod.at, rientjes@google.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        wfg@linux.intel.com
References: <20190501230126.229218-1-brendanhiggins@google.com>
From:   Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>
Message-ID: <ea36c3d6-8c13-2186-16f3-596d834aeebe@deltatee.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 May 2019 21:18:40 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190501230126.229218-1-brendanhiggins@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/17] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit
 testing framework
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 2019-05-01 5:01 p.m., Brendan Higgins wrote:
> ## TLDR
> 
> I rebased the last patchset on 5.1-rc7 in hopes that we can get this in
> 5.2.
> 

As I said on the last posting, I like this and would like to see it move
forward. I still have the same concerns over the downsides of using UML
(ie. not being able to compile large swaths of the tree due to features
that don't exist in that arch) but these are concerns for later.

I'd prefer to see the unnecessary indirection that I pointed out in
patch 8 cleaned up but, besides that, the code looks good to me.

Reviewed-by: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>

Thanks!

Logan