On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 2:43 PM Brendan Higgins
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 2:14 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd(a)kernel.org> wrote:
> Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-01 11:59:57)
> > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 11:55 AM Brendan Higgins
> > <brendanhiggins(a)google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 1:31 AM Petr Mladek <pmladek(a)suse.com>
> > >
> > > > To be honest I do not fully understand KUnit design. I am not
> > > > completely sure how the tested code is isolated from the running
> > > > system. Namely, I do not know if the tested code shares
> > > > the same locks with the system running the test.
> > >
> > > No worries, I don't expect printk to be the hang up in those cases.
> > > sounds like KUnit has a long way to evolve before printk is going to
> > > be a limitation.
> > So Stephen, what do you think?
> > Do you want me to go forward with the new kunit_assert API wrapping
> > the string_stream as I have it now? Would you prefer to punt this to a
> > later patch? Or would you prefer something else?
> I like the struct based approach. If anything, it can be adjusted to
> make the code throw some records into a spinlock later on and delay the
> formatting of the assertion if need be.
That's a fair point.
> Can you resend with that
> approach? I don't think I'll have any more comments after that.
I sent a new revision, v12, that incorporates the kunit_assert stuff.
Let me know what you think!