Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless+bounces-1219-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Message-ID: <2a508793563c46116ef8ef274a9fa3b5675cd7b3.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Add some more cfg80211 and mac80211 kunit tests
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>, Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: benjamin@sipsolutions.net, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, 
 linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, Brendan
 Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>, Benjamin Berg <benjamin.berg@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 11:09:09 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CABVgOSkrhEYXvzjtWfdxmKVGZwGnJTKwbd9+kBSRWxbOfyaRUA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20231220151952.415232-1-benjamin@sipsolutions.net>
	 <fab3c87ea726208cbdec03dfd61230e4c8ceb694.camel@sipsolutions.net>
	 <ae651d3d-58f7-40de-a625-4882cf0efc9b@linuxfoundation.org>
	 <dbcadbe4430cd314373f15a9f4b814e44662bef6.camel@sipsolutions.net>
	 <a2ef9ea4-00e8-4fa4-bc2e-58fbec306503@linuxfoundation.org>
	 <CABVgOSkrhEYXvzjtWfdxmKVGZwGnJTKwbd9+kBSRWxbOfyaRUA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.50.2 (3.50.2-1.fc39) 
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0

Hi,

Thanks for taking a look!

On Fri, 2023-12-22 at 18:02 +0800, David Gow wrote:
> The two initial KUnit patches look fine, modulo a couple of minor docs
> issues and checkpatch warnings.=C2=A0

I can run checkpatch (even if I can't always take it seriously), but do
you want to comment more specifically wrt. the docs?

> They apply cleanly, and I doubt
> there's much chance of there being a merge conflict for 6.8 -- there
> are no other changes to the parameterised test macros, and the skb
> stuff is in its own file.

Right.

> The remaining patches don't apply on top of the kunit branch as-is.

Oh, OK. That makes some sense though, we've had a number of changes in
the stack this cycle before. I somehow thought the tests were likely
standalone, but apparently not.

> I
> haven't had a chance to review them properly yet; the initial glance I
> had didn't show any serious issues (though I think checkpatch
> suggested some things to 'check').

I can check.

> So (once those small issues are finished), I'm okay with the first two
> patches going in via either tree. The remaining ones are probably best
> done via the wireless tree, as they seem to depend on some existing
> patches there, so maybe it makes sense to push everything via
> wireless.

If not through wireless I doubt we'll get it synchronized for 6.8,
though of course it's also not needed for 6.8 to have the extra unit
tests :)

I'll let Shuah decide.

Thanks!

johannes