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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230718052752.1045248-1-ojeda@kernel.org> <CABVgOSk+YOdmpnBpLcx2sC3NN7amdpLf-C35EpvYmzq3SWHAqA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABVgOSk+YOdmpnBpLcx2sC3NN7amdpLf-C35EpvYmzq3SWHAqA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Jul 2023 12:50:39 +0200
Message-ID: <CANiq72=7X7nooVnoS6JxXBwwFGGGJU5eNVNUu=g33-YQjR9vnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] KUnit integration for Rust doctests
To:     David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Cc:     Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@linux.dev>,
        Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@gmail.com>,
        Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@gmail.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, Gary Guo <gary@garyguo.net>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rn_Roy_Baron?= <bjorn3_gh@protonmail.com>,
        Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@proton.me>,
        Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>,
        Andreas Hindborg <nmi@metaspace.dk>,
        kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        patches@lists.linux.dev, Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 10:38=E2=80=AFAM David Gow <davidgow@google.com> wr=
ote:
>
> I like "location" better, personally. The attributes work is still
> ongoing, and while there's some benefit to having "file" and "line"
> separate (it could potentially simplify some implementation on the C
> side), we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

Yeah, I felt it looked a bit better, but if later on it ends up making
things too hard, then yeah, we can definitely simplify it.

> This seems to be working well on the existing cases under kunit.py
> here. I'll continue to play with it, but no worries on my end thus
> far.

Thanks for trying it out!

> Thanks: while we're still arguing a bit about exactly what the format
> of these will look like in the KUnit/KTAP attributes spec/patches,
> what you've used matches what we've been proposing so far.
>
> Let's stick with <test name>.location for now, and change it if needed
> when the attributes spec is finalised.

Sounds good.

> These are all (still) looking pretty good to me. If there are no
> objections, I'd like to take these into kselftest/kunit as-is and if
> we need to change anything (e.g. for consistency with attributes when
> they land), do that as a follow-up.
>
> Thanks again, Miguel, for all the work getting this going!

My pleasure -- and thanks for reviewing it so quickly and all your feedback=
!

Cheers,
Miguel