On Mon, 2019-03-25 at 15:32 -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote: > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 12:11 AM Knut Omang <knut.omang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 2019-03-21 at 18:41 -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 6:10 PM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 2/27/19 11:42 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 10:44 PM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > On 2/19/19 7:39 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:52 AM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On 2/14/19 1:37 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote: > < snip > > > > > > > > > kunit_abort() is what will be call as the result of an assert > > > > > > > > failure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yep. Does that need clarified somewhere. > > > > > > > > BUG(), which is a panic, which is crashing the system is not > > > > > > > > acceptable > > > > > > > > in the Linux kernel. You will just annoy Linus if you submit this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, I thought this was an acceptable use case since, a) this should > > > > > > > never be compiled in a production kernel, b) we are in a pretty bad, > > > > > > > unpredictable state if we get here and keep going. I think you might > > > > > > > have said elsewhere that you think "a" is not valid? In any case, I > > > > > > > can replace this with a WARN, would that be acceptable? > > > > > > > > > > > > A WARN may or may not make sense, depending on the context. It may > > > > > > be sufficient to simply report a test failure (as in the old version > > > > > > of case (2) below. > > > > > > > > > > > > Answers to "a)" and "b)": > > > > > > > > > > > > a) it might be in a production kernel > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for a possibly stupid question, how might it be so? Why would > > > > > someone intentionally build unit tests into a production kernel? > > > > > > > > People do things. Just expect it. > > > > > > Huh, alright. I will take your word for it then. > > > > I have a better explanation: Production kernels have bugs, unfortunately. > > And sometimes those need to be investigated on systems than cannot be > > brought down or affected more than absolutely necessary, maybe via a third party > > doing the execution. A light weight, precise test (well tested ahead :) ) might > > be a way of proving or disproving assumptions that can lead to the development > > and application of a fix. > > Sorry, you are not suggesting testing in production are you? To be > clear, I am not concerned about someone using testing, KUnit, or > whatever in a *production-like* environment: that's not what we are > talking about here. My assumption is that no one will deploy tests > into actual production. And my take is that you should not make such assumptions. Even the cost of bringing down a "production-like" environment can be significant, and the test infrastructure shouldn't think of itself as important enough to justify doing such things. > > IMHO you're confusing "building into" with temporary applying, then removing > > again - like the difference between running a local user space program vs > > installing it under /usr and have it in everyone's PATH. > > I don't really see the point of distinguishing between "building into" > and "temporary applying" in this case; that's part of my point. Maybe > it makes sense in whitebox end-to-end testing, but in the case of unit > testing, I don't think so. > > > > > > > a') it is not acceptable in my development kernel either > > > > I think one of the fundamental properties of a good test framework is that it > > should not require changes to the code under test by itself. > > > > Sure, but that has nothing to do with the environment the code/tests > are running in. Well, just that if the tests require a special environment to run, you limit the usability of the tests in detecting or ruling out real issues. Thanks, Knut > > < snip > > > Cheers
