On 12/1/25 2:43 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On 12/1/2025 5:17 PM, John Hubbard wrote: >> On 12/1/25 12:32 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote: >>> On 11/30/2025 7:34 PM, John Hubbard wrote: >>>> On 11/29/25 1:30 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote: >> ... > You may want to read [1]. CONFIG_RUST_KERNEL_DOCTESTS are run at runtime. You > enable it and boot the kernel. The documentation clearly says "doctests get > compiled as Rust kernel objects, allowing them to run against a built > kernel.". > And this is how I have run it as well. > > [1] https://docs.kernel.org/rust/testing.html > > This also explains why you think list_add_tail() is a noop in my patch, which > it > is not.
Yes, I forgot that they are actually run, you are right. > >> >> I would humbly suggest that you build and *run* your own samples code, for >> new code that has no users yet. > > Yes, I already have an internal tree running it. :) I am not sure why the > assume_init() triggered for you but not for me, I don't think has anything to > do > with doctests since the doctests is in fact just rust code compiled as KUNIT > tests. I think it's because I wrote separate code that was not a doctest, and that code is naturally different from however the doctest exercised it. But it is a good question. > >> Because if you are skipping steps like this (posting the code before >> there is an actual caller), then the documentation of how to use it >> is not "just documentation" anymore--it really needs to run correctly. > > No, that's the thing, these are run. You really are in the wrong here and > appear > to not understand how doctests work. That's a reasonable statement. :) > >> And actually, after writing the above...I still think it would be better >> to post this with its first caller (DRM_BUDDY, or BUDDY_DRM_ALUMNI, or >> however it ends up), so that we can see how it looks and behaves in >> practice. >> >> What's the rush? > > Who said anything about a rush? I am really confused by what you mean. It is > useful to post patches even if there are external dependencies to get > feedback. > So this is also an invalid review comment unfortunately. There is no rush, > this > is v3 now, did you miss that? > I mean, doctests are far weaker than actual code that uses the new API. It feels rushed to propose merging code without a caller. And I don't think doctests are a "real enough" caller. thanks, -- John Hubbard
