From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755009Ab1LHALs (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Dec 2011 19:11:48 -0500 Received: from mail-qy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.216.174]:48066 "EHLO mail-qy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754200Ab1LHALr (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Dec 2011 19:11:47 -0500 Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 01:11:41 +0100 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: Andrew Morton Cc: LKML , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Jason Wessel , Will Deacon Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] selftests: New x86 breakpoints selftest Message-ID: <20111208001138.GD13252@somewhere.redhat.com> References: <1322840475-19553-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> <1322840475-19553-2-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> <20111207153223.4885bab9.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111207153223.4885bab9.akpm@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 03:32:23PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 2 Dec 2011 16:41:15 +0100 > Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > Bring a first selftest in the relevant directory. > > That all looks nice and simple, thanks. Unless I get suitably shouted > at I think I'll send all this Linuswards. Then I can hassle people to > add their little test snippets as they add userspace-visible features. > > I don't think we'd ever want to turn this into some huge kernel > verification suite. My thinking here is that I frequently see that > people have written little test cases for their new feature, but those > test cases just die after the feature is merged. It would be better to > maintain and grow these tests as the relevant features are augmented or > bugfixed. Exactly. And I also think this is no good place for background long running stress-tests but rather for correctness tests (Unless we find situations where short stress-tests are enough to trigger correctness problems). That's really targeted to spot ABI breakages or alike. My selftest for the cgroup task counter subsystem is also a good candidate for that (if that subsystem ever get merged but that's a separate debate ;) > > All these features are Linux-specific. Standard interface features (eg > POSIX) are and should be tested via other externally-maintained test > suites. > > If the whole idea ends up not working out, we can just delete it all. Agreed, let the selftest subsystem selftest itself for a while and we'll figure out. Thanks.