From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A532EEE4993 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2023 14:18:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05E693CC7B8 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2023 16:18:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from in-6.smtp.seeweb.it (in-6.smtp.seeweb.it [217.194.8.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-384)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 299863CC6D4 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2023 16:18:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [IPv6:2001:67c:2178:6::1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-6.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDEB41400F99 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2023 16:18:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEDE31F381; Tue, 22 Aug 2023 14:18:29 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1692713909; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=PTMXfCGxeBA9angk5INp8hDBil7WHdN4s4iIjJi/ZME=; b=Z6Yt2jBz67YNIaHqF8TXzXb/KbDekEA8xuZwE2n4XpdIde0aVubru6itrxA4ynQSL6JdaK DwbmPI14j8fzkWkoUBQ4wIFiNinHJJhlG0Sb7F59LhoJJe0I7SpyQmManLmUpOKzvAZxAC K4jf0yzDhxAgfyGtPdRHfdU0wx1D1ow= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1692713909; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=PTMXfCGxeBA9angk5INp8hDBil7WHdN4s4iIjJi/ZME=; b=mG0BKOpjEfvrLCIzwDU+I1AWJpbVFsmwGPIH3mUxGE6oA9nDM5i3mZP0fSrfPBXtY/KbGz 7Q+1xX+0dbVkBVBQ== Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25DB213919; Tue, 22 Aug 2023 14:18:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id /cmGOLTD5GSRHAAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Tue, 22 Aug 2023 14:18:28 +0000 From: Avinesh Kumar To: Richard Palethorpe Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2023 19:48:26 +0530 Message-ID: <16937131.VfuVlxDoEe@localhost> Organization: SUSE In-Reply-To: <20230822101333.16993-1-rpalethorpe@suse.com> References: <20230822101333.16993-1-rpalethorpe@suse.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.1 at in-6.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH v2] Add goals of patch review and tips X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" Hi Richie, Thank you for this, I'll also start investing more effort in review. Reviewed-by: Avinesh Kumar with few nits below. On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 3:43:33 PM IST Richard Palethorpe via ltp wrote: > I see two options for patch review. Either we have a single senior > maintainer who does most of or it is distributed. > > For now I think it needs to be distributed which is beyond the scope > of this commit. > > In order to distribute it we need new contributors to review each > others' work at least for the first few revisions. > > I think that anyone can review a patch if they put the work in to test > it and try to break it. Then understand why it is broken. > > This commit states some ideas about how to do that, plus some tips for > more advanced patch review. > > Signed-off-by: Richard Palethorpe > Cc: Cyril Hrubis > > --- > > I'd like to clear this off the queue now. > > V2: > * Correct typo > * Use Einstein quote > * Mention Tested-by > > doc/maintainer-patch-review-checklist.txt | 82 ++++++++++++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 81 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/doc/maintainer-patch-review-checklist.txt > b/doc/maintainer-patch-review-checklist.txt index 61eb06c5f..b11c7b546 > 100644 > --- a/doc/maintainer-patch-review-checklist.txt > +++ b/doc/maintainer-patch-review-checklist.txt > @@ -1,4 +1,84 @@ > -# Maintainer Patch Review Checklist > +# Patch Review > + > +Anyone can and should review patches. It's the only way to get good at > +patch review and for the project to scale. > + > +## Goals of patch review > + > +1. Prevent false positive test results > +2. Prevent false negative test results > +3. Keep the code as simple as possible, but no simpler > + > +## How to find clear errors > + > +A clear error is one where there is unlikely to be any argument if you > +provide evidence of it. Evidence being an error trace or logical proof > +that an error will occur in a common situation. > + > +The following are examples and may not be appropriate for all tests. > + > +* Merge the patch. It should apply cleanly to master. > +* Compile the patch with default and non-default configurations. > + - Use sanitizers e.g. undefined behaviour, address. > + - Compile on non-x86 > + - Compile on x86 with -m32 > +* Use `make check` > +* Run effected tests in a VM > + - Use single vCPU > + - Use many vCPUs and enable NUMA > + - Restrict RAM to < 1GB. > +* Run effected tests on an embedded device > +* Run effected tests on non-x86 machine in general > +* Run reproducers on a kernel where the bug is present > +* Run tests with "-i0" > +* Compare usage of system calls with man page descriptions > +* Compare usage of system calls with kernel code > +* Search the LTP library for existing helper functions > + > +## How to find subtle errors > + > +A subtle error is one where you can expect some argument because you > +do not have clear evidence of an error. It is best to state these as > +questions and not make assertions if possible. > + > +Although if it is a matter of style or "taste" then senior maintainers > +can assert what is correct to avoid bike shedding. > + > +* Ask what happens if there is an error, could it be debugged just > + with the test output? > +* Are we testing undefined behavior? > + - Could future kernel behaviour change without "breaking userland"? > + - Does the kernel behave differently depending on hardware? > + - Does it behave differently depending kernel on configuration? depending on kernel configuration > + - Does it behave differently depending on the compiler? > +* Will it scale to tiny and huge systems? > + - What happens if there are 100+ CPUs? > + - What happens if each CPU core is very slow? > + - What happens if there are 2TB or RAM? s/or/of > +* Are we repeating a pattern that can be turned into a library function? > +* Is a single test trying to do too much? > +* Could multiple similar tests be merged? > +* Race conditions > + - What happens if a process gets preempted? > + - Could checkpoints or fuzzsync by used instead? > + - Note, usually you can insert a sleep to prove a race condition > + exists however finding them is hard > +* Is there a simpler way to achieve the same kernel coverage? > + > +## How to get patches merged > + > +Once you think a patch is good enough you should add your Reviewed-by > +and/or Tested-by tags. This means you will get some credit for getting > +the patch merged. Also some blame if there are problems. > + > +If you ran the test you can add the Tested-by tag. If you read the > +code or used static analysis tools on it, you can add the Reviewed-by > +tag. > + > +In addition you can expect others to review your patches and add their > +tags. This will speed up the process of getting your patches merged. > + > +## Maintainers Checklist > > Patchset should be tested locally and ideally also in maintainer's fork in > GitHub Actions on GitHub. -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp