Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] selftests/vm: use a common gup_test.h
To:     John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgR2xpc3Nl?= <jglisse@redhat.com>,
        Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@nvidia.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
References: <20200928062159.923212-1-jhubbard@nvidia.com>
 <20200928062159.923212-3-jhubbard@nvidia.com>
 <20200928125739.GP9916@ziepe.ca>
 <6481e78f-c70d-133a-ff4a-325b5cd8fd5d@nvidia.com>
 <20200929163507.GV9916@ziepe.ca>
 <aab477bf-4353-5e6b-4cc9-9872c9376ed2@nvidia.com>
 <20200929175524.GX9916@ziepe.ca>
 <715c49ec-d2a8-45cb-8ace-c6b1b4b8f978@nvidia.com>
 <20200929190816.GY9916@ziepe.ca>
 <3022912c-f11b-f564-3a8a-f516ca259a37@nvidia.com>
 <20200929195356.GZ9916@ziepe.ca>
 <64bb5ba7-77f7-2f09-44f0-29ee9329b183@linuxfoundation.org>
 <554699c6-cc01-4c3c-3ed5-26d22ac3bac0@nvidia.com>
From:   Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <9372727e-1a79-913b-5391-e0c4a85bf5a7@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Tue, 29 Sep 2020 14:20:14 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <554699c6-cc01-4c3c-3ed5-26d22ac3bac0@nvidia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 9/29/20 2:11 PM, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 9/29/20 1:00 PM, Shuah Khan wrote:
>> On 9/29/20 1:53 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> I only remarked because I didn't know it wasn't using kbuild. I
>>> thought it would have used the existing HOSTCC stuff, not sure why it
>>> is special.
>>>
>>> The only investment that seems worthwhile would be to switch it to use
>>> the normal kbuild stuff??
>>>
>>
>> I explored switching to kbuild at the kernel summit last year during
>> my kselftest where are we talk.
>>
>> There was push back from several developers. We can definitely explore
>> it as long as we can still support being able to build and run
>> individual subsystem tests and doesn't break workflow for developers.
>>
> 
> Do you have a link or two for that? Especially about the pushback, and
> conclusions reached, if any.
> 

Unfortunately no. A I recall it was workflow related issues and ease of
running individual subsystem tests and backwards compatibility with
stables.

Let's start a new discussion and see where we land.

thanks,
-- Shuah