On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 12:23:04PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 10:48:47AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 04:01:40PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > I'm not really concerned with performance here, but more with the size > > > of the code emitted by WARN_ONCE(). There are a *ton* of WARN sites, > > > while only one report_bug() and printk(). > > > > > > The really offensive thing is that this is for a feature most nobody > > > will ever need :/ > > > > Well, it won't be enabled often -- this reminds me of ftrace: it needs > > to work, but it'll be off most of the time. > > Well, ftrace is useful, but when would I *ever* care about this stuff? I > can't operate kunit
Why not? > don't give a crap about kunit That's your choice, of course, and it might not be useful to you anyway, but it's *really* nice and closed a major gap in testing in some other areas. I'd still encourage you to try it, it might be worth your time. > and if I were to magically run it, I would be more than capable of > ignoring WARNs. Yeah, it's not just about ignoring WARNs, but mostly about knowing which ones you can ignore, and which ones you should fix. We're getting at a point (on some subsystems I guess) where we actually have a decent testing suite we can ask contributors to run and have all tests passing. We also want to ask them to fix whatever issue they might introduce :) Thanks for your help on getting a cleaner solution! Maxime
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
