Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <38507e4b4ab6972fa76d32d74da1911d6c4224d3.camel@svanheule.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] cpumask: KUnit test suite fixes and improvements
From:   Sander Vanheule <sander@svanheule.net>
To:     Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@linux.dev>,
        David Gow <davidgow@google.com>,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com,
        =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ma=EDra?= Canal <mairacanal@riseup.net>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Sun, 21 Aug 2022 15:25:54 +0200
In-Reply-To: <YwFa0xiM/b0N5X0w@yury-laptop>
References: <cover.1661007338.git.sander@svanheule.net>
         <YwFa0xiM/b0N5X0w@yury-laptop>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.44.4 (3.44.4-1.fc36) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

Hi Yury,

On Sat, 2022-08-20 at 15:06 -0700, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 05:03:08PM +0200, Sander Vanheule wrote:
> > This series fixes the reported issues, and implements the suggested
> > improvements, for the version of the cpumask tests [1] that was merged
> > with commit c41e8866c28c ("lib/test: introduce cpumask KUnit test
> > suite").
> >=20
> > These changes include fixes for the tests, and better alignment with th=
e
> > KUnit style guidelines.
>=20
> I wrote a couple comments, but the series looks OK to me in general.
> So for 2, 3 and 5:
> Acked-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
>=20
> It's named as 'fix', but it fixes a test, and the kernel code itself
> looks correct. So, do you want to take it into 6.0-rc, or in 6.1?
>=20
> I'm OK to do it this way or another, but for later -rc's it may look
> too noisy. And I'm not sure where to put a threshold.

Broken tests are worse than no tests IMHO, so I would at least like patches=
 1
and 2 to be merged for 6.0-rc. I don't want people to end up with false
positives, like Ma=C3=ADra did, for an entire release cycle.

Preferably I would also like to see 3 in 6.0-rc, so no renames will be need=
ed in
6.1 anymore. Not that I expect anything to depend on this symbol (or filena=
me)
by then, but I feel it's better not to risk that by waiting for 6.1.

Patches 4 and 5 can go with 6.1, as far as I'm concerned. Especially as the=
 mask
logging patch (4) may need some work still.

Best,
Sander