public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Jack Stone <jwjstone@fastmail.fm>
Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Regression testing framework for the kernel
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 05:44:12 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090511094412.GA3665@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1241125556.12894.1313160577@webmail.messagingengine.com>

On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 11:05:56PM +0200, Jack Stone wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> I would like to suggest a new framework to test the kernel. This
> framework would have the following goals:
>     * Only runs at build time and has no effect on running kernel

I don't think we should ever run tests at build time unconditionally.
If we want to integrate it with make it should at least be a separate
make check.

> The best way of acheiving this that I have thought of it to compile the
> kernel source in question and
> to link it with special framework files. These files would serve two
> purposes: to provide the main function
> of the program and to provide the missing symbols for the kernel code.
> This would allow the replacement of
> certain functions in the code. For example replacing the spin_lock and
> spin_unlock functions would allow the
> locking behavior to be checked.

That's going to be a lot of stubs if we want to have a wide coverage.
Then again people are alredy doing this in various places, either with
the code in-tree but not easily buildable or out of tree, so having
all this in a common place and a common test driver would be a defintive
improvement.  The right approach would probably be to add stubs on a
as-needed basis instead of trying to provide full coverage.

> Usage examples:
>     * Test the behavior of a device driver
>          As various kernel functions can be overridden a test case could
>          be written to simulate a given device and
>          check that there are no regressions in the driver

Not sure that is a good use.  If we want to emulate hardware I think
we're better of using qemu for it and run a normal kernel under it.

>     * Regression testing
>          Any time a regression is found and fixed in the kernel a test
>          case could be written to check that the
>          regression does not reoccur later on.

I think that is the primary use case. Regresion-tests for library-ish
code that doesn't require much global state.


  reply	other threads:[~2009-05-11  9:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-04-30 21:05 [RFC] Regression testing framework for the kernel Jack Stone
2009-05-11  9:44 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2009-05-11 14:15   ` Jack Stone

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20090511094412.GA3665@infradead.org \
    --to=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=jwjstone@fastmail.fm \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox