On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 10:52:02PM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > On 2025-06-10 18:21:27+0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Given that AFAICT the tests don't use any kselftest infrastructure or > > otherwise overlap with it I think it'd be better to move them to > > tools/testing/nolibc, that'd make it clearer that they're their own > > thing and avoid surprises. > Also makes sense. However I plan to make the tests compatible with > kselftests as one of the next steps. The custom logic will stay, but for > increased test coverage the tests should also work as regular selftests. Ah, great - if it's going to be integrated into the kselftest runtime system then that'd help a lot.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
