From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932128AbbCBRVb (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Mar 2015 12:21:31 -0500 Received: from lists.s-osg.org ([54.187.51.154]:59386 "EHLO lists.s-osg.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754946AbbCBRV2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Mar 2015 12:21:28 -0500 Message-ID: <54F49C17.8080804@osg.samsung.com> Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 10:21:27 -0700 From: Shuah Khan Organization: Samsung Open Source Group User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Stultz CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Prarit Bhargava , Thomas Gleixner , Richard Cochran Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/19] Add timekeeping tests to kernel selftest References: <1424903544-26855-1-git-send-email-john.stultz@linaro.org> <54F498B1.6090409@osg.samsung.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 03/02/2015 10:14 AM, John Stultz wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Shuah Khan wrote: >> On 02/25/2015 03:32 PM, John Stultz wrote: >>> I've hosted my timekeeping tests on github for the last few years: >>> https://github.com/johnstultz-work/timetests >>> >>> but I suspect not too many folks have actually used them. >>> >>> I've been meaning to get them reworked and submitted into the >>> selftest infrastructure, but haven't had much time until >>> recently. So I wanted to send this out and get any feedback >>> to see if they might be able to get into shape for the 4.1 >>> merge window. >>> >>> I've added both the non-desctructive and destructive tests >>> (which set the time, possibly to strange values, or tries >>> to trigger historical issues that could crash the machine). >>> The destructive tests are run (as root, or with proper >>> privledge) via: >>> # make run_destructive_tests >>> >> >> I quickly browsed through the tests. Looks good to me. One >> comment on test run scope. Since timers now include destructive >> tests, run_tests target should only run the non-destructive by >> default and destructive tests. > > Yes, agreed. That's why they are separated. > >> I didn't see the run_destructive_tests in this set of changes >> in the timers/Makefile. > > ? See patch 10/19 for where run_destructive_tests gets introduced. Sorry missed that one. > >> Please see cpu-hotplug and memory-hotplug as examples that >> support default and full range tests. > > Would you rather the destructive tests be included in run_full_tests? run_destructive_tests is just fine and appropriate for these tests. > > Other then that, I've got a few compiler warning cleanup and a fix for > CROSS_COMPILE, so I'll resbumit the set tomorrow or later this week. > So let me know if there are any other changes you'd like and I'll roll > those in. Please use kselftest.h reporting mechanism for new tests. posix_timers.c is updated to use it and it would make sense use it for new tests as well. thanks, -- Shuah -- Shuah Khan Sr. Linux Kernel Developer Open Source Innovation Group Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley) shuahkh@osg.samsung.com | (970) 217-8978