On Tue, 24 Sep 2024, Maxime Ripard <mripard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 06:56:26PM GMT, Jani Nikula wrote: >> On Tue, 24 Sep 2024, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 12:06:28PM GMT, Simona Vetter wrote: >> >>>>> Yeah I think long-term we might want a kunit framework so that we can >> >>>>> catch dmesg warnings we expect and test for those, without those warnings >> >>>>> actually going to dmesg. Similar to how the lockdep tests also reroute >> >>>>> locking validation, so that the expected positive tests don't wreak >> >>>>> lockdep for real. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> But until that exists, we can't have tests that splat in dmesg when they >> >>>>> work as intended. >> > >> > FWIW, that is arguable. More and more tests are added which do add such splats, >> > and I don't see any hesitance by developers to adding more. So far I counted >> > two alone in this commit window, and that does not include new splats from >> > tests which I had already disabled. I simply disable those tests or don't >> > enable them in the first place if they are new. I did the same with the drm >> > unit tests due to the splats generated by the scaling unit tests, so any >> > additional drm unit test splats don't make a difference for me since the >> > tests are already disabled. >> >> What's the point of having unit tests that CI systems routinely have to >> filter out of test runs? Or filter warnings generated by the tests, >> potentially missing new warnings. Who is going to run the tests if the >> existing CI systems choose to ignore them? > > If we turn this argument around, that means we can't write unit test for > code that will create a warning. The question really is, which warnings we get because of the functionality being tested, and which warnings are due to an unexpected and unrelated bug? Is it a pass or fail if the test triggers an unrelated warning? If the developer runs the tests, are they expected to look at dmesg and inspect every warning to decide? > IMO, this creates a bad incentive, and saying that any capable CI system > should reject them is certainly opiniated. All I'm saying it generates an extra burden for current real world CI systems that run tests on a massive scale and even have paid maintainers. It's not trivial to sort out expected and unexpected warnings, and keep the filters updated every time the warnings change. It's not without a cost. And the end result might just be that the unit tests won't get run at all. Or warnings just get completely ignored for kunit tests. I don't completely disagree with you either. It's just that we don't have that automation on the kernel side, and in the mean time, perhaps we should be really conservative about the warnings we create in tests? If we can't filter out the warnings kernel side, perhaps we could figure out a way to annotate the kunit tests that generate warnings on passing runs? BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel
