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: <20201019224556.3536790-1-dlatypov@google.com> <CABVgOS=Kucf3QV=jpo3cLDgG38WvnuKpzEdP_RkBtRwHHPLe3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGS_qxpX0Do+z-wzCC=twbt-htL=Jkqvrk4L4rKTtXFPfX-TCA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201022150648.GH4077@smile.fi.intel.com> <CAFd5g45o2G-bUvHNk2ehNuCsK6zVjN+rp88TyNmuJpfLbQi07g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201022190526.GN4077@smile.fi.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20201022190526.GN4077@smile.fi.intel.com>
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 22 Oct 2020 14:21:40 -0700
Message-ID: <CAFd5g46RBSgqujAbPSKasP5B6ufojHwTztvOWjSg3Lxk5QGHxw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lib: add basic KUnit test for lib/math
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>,
        David Gow <davidgow@google.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 12:04 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 11:53:50AM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 8:06 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 10:47:50AM -0700, Daniel Latypov wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > You need to put detailed comments in the code to have it as real example how to
> > > create the KUnit test. But hey, it will mean that documentation sucks. So,
> > > please update documentation to cover issues that you found and which motivated
> > > you to create these test cases.
> >
> > I don't entirely disagree; leaning too heavily on code examples can be
> > detrimental to docs. That being said, when I use other people's code,
> > I often don't even look at the docs. So, I think the ideal is to have
> > both.
>
> Why do we have docs in the first place?
> For test cases I think it's a crucial part, because tests many time are written
> by newbies, who would like to understand all under-the-hood stuff. You imply

Good point. Yeah, we don't really have any documentation that explains
the internals at all. I agree: we need to fix that.

> that they need to drop themselves into the code directly. It's very harsh to
> begin with Linux kernel development, really.

No, I was not trying to imply that everyone should just jump in the
code and ignore the docs. I was just trying to point out that some
people - myself included - rather see code than docs. Clearly some
people prefer docs over code as well. Thus, I was trying to argue that
both are appropriate.

Nevertheless, based on the other comments you sent, I don't think
that's what we are talking about: sounds like you just want us to
improve the docs first to make sure we do it. That's fine with me.

> > > Summarize this, please create usable documentation first.
>
> So, no go for this w/o documentation being up-to-date. Or be honest to
> everybody, it's sucks it needs to be removed. Then I will get your point.
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>
>