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.
next prev parent 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