On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 08:16:33AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> If we start shaming people for not providing unit tests, all we'll accomplish is >> that people will stop providing bug fixes. > > Yes, this is the key! > > Steven, just look at everything marked with a "Fixes:" or "stable@" tag > from 4.12-rc1..4.12 and try to determine how you would write a test for > the majority of them. > > Yes, for some subsystems this can work (look at xfstests as one great > example for filesystems, same for the i915 tests), but for the majority > of the kernel, at this point in time, it doesn't make sense. > > So take Carlos's advice, start small, do it for your subsystem if you > don't touch hardware (easy peasy, right?), and let's see how it goes, > and see if we have the infrastructure to do it even today. Right now, > kselftests is finally getting a unified output format, which is great, > it shows that people are starting to use and rely on it. What else will > we need to make this more widely used, we don't know yet... This is very hard work and takes a long time. Since 3 years I'm trying to establish the i915 test suite as an overall drm validation set. At least the generic parts like for the cross-driver kernel modeset interfaces, but also allowing other drivers to test their hw specific command submission. It's very slow going ... -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
