On 07/06/2017 04:32 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 16:24:01 -0600 > Shuah Khan <shuahkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> Over the past couple of years, kselftests have seen improvements to run >> on ARM in kernel ci rings. TAP13 will definitely make it easier to find >> run to run differences. There is the effort to use ksefltests to test >> stable releases (4.4 LTS for example), which will help make the tests >> fail/skip gracefully when a feature isn't enabled/supported. >> >> The work so far is two fold: >> >> - enable them to run in test rings. >> - making them easy to use >> >> As per test development, we are constantly adding tests and I see new tests >> getting added for sub-systems that aren't hardware dependent. You will see >> lots of activity in mm, timers, seccomp, net, sys-calls to name a few. >> >> I am going to be looking for TAP13 format compliance for new tests starting >> 4.13. >> >> I am not sure how popular they are among developers and sub-system maintainers >> though. Maybe this is one area we can try to improve usage. As a clarification, what I meant by "how popular they are among developers and sub-system maintainers" is that how often developers and sub-system maintainers run kselftests and are there any obstacles for running them. It would be good to get feedback on usage by us as in developers. > > Maybe this should be included in the MAINTAINERS SUMMIT as well. To > consolidate the format of all the kselftests and have something that > everyone (or most) developers agree on. thanks, -- Shuah -- 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
