public inbox for ltp@lists.linux.it
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>
To: Richard Palethorpe <rpalethorpe@suse.com>
Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH v2] Add goals of patch review and tips
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2023 12:03:22 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZOXZarakyIoZeqQ-@yuki> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230822101333.16993-1-rpalethorpe@suse.com>

> 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?
> +  - Does it behave differently depending on the compiler?
  - Does it behave differently when order of checks on syscall
    parameters change in kernel?

We used to have quite some tests that passed two or more invalid
parameters to a sysycall expecting one of them would be checked first...

> +* 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?
> +* 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

Looks very nice, thanks for writing this out.

Reviewed-by: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

  parent reply	other threads:[~2023-08-23 10:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-08-22 10:13 [LTP] [PATCH v2] Add goals of patch review and tips Richard Palethorpe via ltp
2023-08-22 14:18 ` Avinesh Kumar
2023-08-23 10:03 ` Cyril Hrubis [this message]
2023-08-23 13:37   ` iob via ltp
2023-08-23 13:52     ` Cyril Hrubis
2023-08-24  8:13       ` Richard Palethorpe

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=ZOXZarakyIoZeqQ-@yuki \
    --to=chrubis@suse.cz \
    --cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
    --cc=rpalethorpe@suse.com \
    /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