On 08/02/2017 11:33 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Shuah Khan <shuahkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On 07/31/2017 10:54 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >>> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>>> On Wed, 5 Jul 2017 09:48:31 -0700 >>>> Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 07/05/2017 08:27 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 5 Jul 2017 08:16:33 -0700 >>>>>> Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> [ ... ] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If we start shaming people for not providing unit tests, all we'll accomplish is >>>>>>> that people will stop providing bug fixes. >>>>>> >>>>>> I need to be clearer on this. What I meant was, if there's a bug >>>>>> where someone has a test that easily reproduces the bug, then if >>>>>> there's not a test added to selftests for said bug, then we should >>>>>> shame those into doing so. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't think that public shaming of kernel developers is going to work >>>>> any better than public shaming of children or teenagers. >>>>> >>>>> Maybe a friendlier approach would be more useful ? >>>> >>>> I'm a friendly shamer ;-) >>>> >>>>> >>>>> If a test to reproduce a problem exists, it might be more beneficial to suggest >>>>> to the patch submitter that it would be great if that test would be submitted >>>>> as unit test instead of shaming that person for not doing so. Acknowledging and >>>>> praising kselftest submissions might help more than shaming for non-submissions. >>>>> >>>>>> A bug that is found by inspection or hard to reproduce test cases are >>>>>> not applicable, as they don't have tests that can show a regression. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> My concern would be that once the shaming starts, it won't stop. >>>> >>>> I think this is a communication issue. My word for "shaming" was to >>>> call out a developer for not submitting a test. It wasn't about making >>>> fun of them, or anything like that. I was only making a point >>>> about how to teach people that they need to be more aware of the >>>> testing infrastructure. Not about actually demeaning people. >>>> >>>> Lets take a hypothetical sample. Say someone posted a bug report with >>>> an associated reproducer for it. The developer then runs the reproducer >>>> sees the bug, makes a fix and sends it to Linus and stable. Now the >>>> developer forgets this and continues on their merry way. Along comes >>>> someone like myself and sees a reproducing test case for a bug, but >>>> sees no test added to kselftests. I would send an email along the lines >>>> of "Hi, I noticed that there was a reproducer for this bug you fixed. >>>> How come there was no test added to the kselftests to make sure it >>>> doesn't appear again?" There, I "shamed" them ;-) >>> >>> I just want to point out that kselftests are hard to build and run. >>> >>> As I was looking at another issue I found a bug in one of the tests. It >>> had defined a constant wrong. I have a patch. It took me a week of >>> poking at the kselftest code and trying one thing or another (between >>> working on other things) before I could figure out which combination of >>> things would let the test build and run. >>> >>> Until kselftests get easier to run I don't think they are something we >>> want to push to hard. >>> >> >> I would say it is easy to run ksefltests - "make kseflttest" from the >> main Makefile does this for you. You can also run individual tests: > > On 4.13-rc1 That doesn't work. > > $ make O=$PWD-build -j8 kselftests > make[1]: Entering directory 'linux-build' > make[1]: *** No rule to make target 'kselftests'. Stop. > make[1]: Leaving directory 'linux-build' > Makefile:145: recipe for target 'sub-make' failed > make: *** [sub-make] Error 2 It is "make kselftest" > > And why I have to use some esoteric command and not just the > traditional "make path/to/test/output" to run an individual > test is beyond me. > make kselftest from top level Makefile is a way to run all the tests. As I mentioned in my previous email "You can also run individual tests: "make -C tools/testing/selftests/sync" for example to run sync tests. or you can also run: make -C tools/testing/selftests/ run_tests 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
