On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:27:44AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > On Fri, 14 Feb 2020, Boqun Feng wrote: > > > A recent discussion raises up the requirement for having test cases for > > atomic APIs: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200213085849.GL14897@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > , and since we already have a way to generate a test module from a > > litmus test with klitmus[1]. It makes sense that we add more litmus > > tests for atomic APIs into memory-model. > > It might be worth discussing this point a little more fully. The I'm open to any suggestion, and ... > set of tests in tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/ is deliberately rather > limited. Paul has a vastly more expansive set of litmus tests in a I'm OK if we want to limit the number of litmus tests in tools/memory-model/litmus-tests directory. But ... > GitHub repository, and I am doubtful about how many new tests we want > to keep in the kernel source. > I think we all agree we want to use litmus tests as much as possbile for discussing locking/parallel programming/memory model related problems, right? This is benefical for both kernel and the herd tool, as they can improve each other. Atomic APIs (perhaps even {READ,WRITE}_ONCE(), smp_load_acquire() and smp_store_release()) have been longing for some more concrete examples as a complement for the semantics description in the docs, so that people can check their understandings. Further, with the help of klitmus, the litmus tests can be a useful tool for testing if a new arch support is added to kernel. That's why I plan to add litmus tests into kernel source. Thoughts? Regards, Boqun > Perhaps it makes sense to have tests corresponding to all the examples > in Documentation/, perhaps not. How do people feel about this? > > Alan >
