Shuah Khan <shuahkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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" If I include the standard O= to keep my source tree pristine it still fails. Which is a practical issue. Especially because that "make kselftest" needs to be followed by I think "make mrproper" to get back to my normal development workflow. I don't remember exactly what the issue was but I could not get: tools/testing/selftests/x86/mpx-mini-test.c tools/testing/selftests/x86/protection_keys.c to build let alone run when I did "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 As I said complicated. That is definitely not the ordinary way of building things in the kernel tree. Given that some of those other tests take a little while to run, running individual tests is actually quite important during development. Eric -- 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
