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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200729201146.537433-1-vitor@massaru.org> <20200729203908.GD2655@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CADQ6JjW-=SNjV-abGpGA9NfHD4yGG_bD5FmvW99W-Vo06twkbw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200804132517.GK2657@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <CADQ6JjWzze-VAmg_b9EkS4iVySt5pw8V4FSxYpDFAj8jvBxuGA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200804142344.GM2674@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <CADQ6JjWbCsyWxZKQ5=kkxx8hkaW=mbCjDodPXDAv5vH-=tVvEQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFd5g46DzWRzp9yXkpHbtyJuv236E=z7OaWeqXnfuiy6CTBL4A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP-5=fXhFG9sTMcfd1qJmMDNJWqOGky=jFtWNWg8U8-dkRp=dQ@mail.gmail.com> <20201014195948.GE2974@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <20201014195948.GE2974@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Vitor Massaru Iha <vitor@massaru.org>
Date:   Wed, 14 Oct 2020 17:03:52 -0300
Message-ID: <CADQ6JjX+Hqw7Lm61BfMHrELya81boaYRrYmGH-o8xTBAgD_KSA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lib: kunit: add test_min_heap test conversion to KUnit
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>,
        KUnit Development <kunit-dev@googlegroups.com>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 5:00 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 11:16:10AM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
>
> > There were some issues in the original patch, they should be easy to
> > fix. I'm more concerned that Peter's issues are addressed about the
> > general direction of the patch, verbosity and testing frameworks. I
> > see Vitor followed up with Peter but I'm not sure that means the
> > approach has been accepted.
>
> I kinda lost track, as long as it doesn't get more verbose I suppose I'm
> fine.


Ok. I'll send the v2 later with Ian's suggestions.