From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758259AbYACLGs (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Jan 2008 06:06:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752818AbYACLGk (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Jan 2008 06:06:40 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:51947 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752729AbYACLGj (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Jan 2008 06:06:39 -0500 Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 12:04:59 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, lkml , Anil S Keshavamurthy , davem@davemloft.net, mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca, hskinnemoen@atmel.com, mhiramat@redhat.com, sam@ravnborg.org, randy.dunlap@oracle.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Kprobes: Move kprobes examples to samples/ Message-ID: <20080103110459.GI29194@elte.hu> References: <20080103062425.GA22781@in.ibm.com> <20080103062825.GB22781@in.ibm.com> <20080103093303.GB16803@elte.hu> <20080103102233.GB28934@in.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080103102233.GB28934@in.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote: > > feature request: please make this work in the !modular case as well > > - if built-in then it should just run sometime during bootup and run > > the tests and report success/failure. This way automated testing can > > pick up any regressions much easier. > > Will try cook up something along those lines. It'll be easy to verify > if the probes inserted and removed properly, but verifying handlers > run correctly will need some work. > > We have a sort of regression test bucket that uses expect to parse the > dmesg to verify handlers did run correctly; that isn't a totally > in-kernel solution anyway. I have a couple of ideas in mind to make it > easier. Great. Would be really nice to have something along the lines of CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCKING_API_SELFTESTS. Those unit tests took time to develop, but they caught more than 90% (!) of the internal lockdep engine bugs before they ever hit mainline. Ingo