(2014/10/08 11:20), Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 10:59:49 +0900 > Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu...@hitachi.com> wrote: > >>> Both of these have valid reasons staying in the kernel and I don't see >>> either as dead weight. Is there a maintenance issue with keeping it in >>> the kernel? There doesn't seem to be much done to it. It seems >>> untouched for over a year, and that was to add support for multiple >>> buffers. >> >> Keeping it has no issue. But it's much easier to expand the test >> in userspace than the kernel code. I'll add more feature tests in >> kselftest, but not in this code. This means that this startup >> test code will get behind. > > And that's exactly what I expect you to do. I have lots of tests to > test ftrace, but what gets tested at kernel startup is just a bare > minimum, and that's all it needs to be. I don't expect you to extend > the start up self tests. That should be only done for the scripts. But > we have this start up test and I don't see a reason to get rid of it. > If anything, it gives me warm fuzzies in my stomach when I see it > pass :-) > > The start up tests in the kernel should really just be the basic of the > basic tests, that give a small sanity check that a change didn't > totally screw things up. > > Can you send a new patch that doesn't remove the start up test?
OK, I'll send it asap :) Thank you, -- Masami HIRAMATSU Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Research Center Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory E-mail: masami.hiramatsu...@hitachi.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
