Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 8 May 2026 13:22:16 +0200 | | From | Alexander Gordeev <> | | Subject | Re: [RESEND PATCH] s390: fix dead defaults for S390_MODULES_SANITY_TEST and S390_UNWIND_SELFTEST |
| |
On Wed, May 06, 2026 at 05:51:19PM +0100, Julian Braha wrote: > On 5/6/26 13:37, Alexander Gordeev wrote: > > In the end of the day I see no impact on the end result (aka the > > generated config) - please correct me if I am wrong. > > Yes, there is actually an impact on the end result / the generated > config:
That is what is currently generated (likely because of "depends on KUNIT"):
CONFIG_S390_UNWIND_SELFTEST=m CONFIG_S390_MODULES_SANITY_TEST=m # CONFIG_KUNIT_ALL_TESTS is not set
> When a user of the kernel build system (e.g. 'make menuconfig') enables > the config option KUNIT_ALL_TESTS, the user expects *all of the tests* > to be enabled. Which is what commit > 25d36a85c61b ("s390/test_unwind: convert to KUnit") > was attempting to do with these tests, but it appears they made a > copy-paste mistake. This is the commit referenced in the Fixes tag. > > The point is, these tests were intended to be included with > KUNIT_ALL_TESTS, but aren't. This is unintended behavior, and the > definition of a bug in the kernel configuration spec.
I could not recreate it. Could you please provide the exact steps?
> That being said, I do agree with you that this is pretty low in > severity, as far as bugs go. It is kunit tests we're talking about, > after all. I'll check with Greg to see if he thinks this is worthy of > a Fixes tag. Another, similar patch I sent out includes the Fixes tag, > and has not received any objections from its 3 reviewers and testers > so far: > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260405161545.161006-1-julianbraha@gmail.com/
Well, this is not about severity, it is about whether an actual problem did exist and was fixed. The patch itself is fine
> > I think once the tool is officially included you could refer to it > > in the commit message, > > I will also check on the best practices for tool-assisted development. > In the past, I have received encouragement for acknowledging the tool: > https://lore.kernel.org/all/bfdfdb05-77e2-455d-b68d-9da3fd9d1c0d@lucifer.local/ > and the official kernel docs require an acknowledgement for AI tool > assistance (although this tool is not AI and doesn't generate code...)
I do appreciate your effort to bring a new tool! But unless it is part of the toolchain it shold not be referred to in a commit message as far as I am concerned. IOW, once it is in the tree, it is fine to mention it:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260405122749.4990dcb538d457769a3276e0@linux-foundation.org/ officially
> - Julian Braha
Thanks!
|  |