Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Message-ID: <f496b0c6-ad94-1837-1edd-3f6f9c00b927@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 15 Apr 2022 14:44:27 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] kunit: Support redirecting function calls
Content-Language: en-US
From:   Steve Muckle <smuckle@google.com>
To:     Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>,
        David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Cc:     Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
        kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Joe Fradley <joefradley@google.com>
References: <20220318021314.3225240-1-davidgow@google.com>
 <20220318092159.6f275782@gandalf.local.home>
 <CAFd5g461Poh37o=3m6EXppdX7oS0D5vZxvFAEtzJMwtBD1VJEw@mail.gmail.com>
 <f65c2381-1e9c-5945-7672-848d1826532d@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <f65c2381-1e9c-5945-7672-848d1826532d@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

+Joe Fradley who is also looking at KUnit with Android.

On 4/15/22 14:43, Steve Muckle wrote:
> On 4/4/22 13:13, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 9:22 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 10:13:12 +0800
>>> David Gow <davidgow@google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Does either (or both) of these features sound useful, and is this
>>>> sort-of API the right model? (Personally, I think there's a reasonable
>>>> scope for both.) Is anything obviously missing or wrong? Do the names,
>>>> descriptions etc. make any sense?
>>>
>>> Obviously I'm biased toward the ftrace solution ;-)
>>
>> Personally, I like providing both - as long as we can keep the
>> interface the same.
>>
>> Ftrace is less visually invasive, but it is also less flexible in
>> capabilities, and requires substantial work to support on new
>> architectures.
> 
> The general feature looks useful to me. I'm not sure the ftrace based 
> API is worth it given it is only offering a visual improvement and has 
> some drawbacks compared to the other implementation (won't work with 
> inline functions, dependencies on other features). Livepatch is absent 
> on arm64 which mostly rules it out for my purposes (Android Generic 
> Kernel Image testing).
> 
> cheers,
> Steve