Hi Rusty,
At Fri, 27 Mar 2015 14:01:22 +1030,
Rusty Russell wrote:
>
> Richard Weinberger <richard@xxxxxx> writes:
> > This also infers that arch/lib will be broken most of the time as
> > every time the networking stack references a new symbol it
> > has to be duplicated into arch/lib.
> >
> > But this does not mean that your idea is bad, all I want to say that
> > I'm not sure whether arch/lib is the right approach.
> > Maybe Arnd has a better idea.
>
> Exactly why I look forward to getting this in-tree. Jeremy Kerr and I
> wrote nfsim back in 2005(!) which stubbed around the netfilter
> infrastructure; with failtest and valgrind it found some nasty bugs. It
> was too much hassle to maintain out-of-tree though :(
we're aware of (and respected ;)) nfsim, and expanded the
idea with DCE: make test ARCH=lib gives a broad testsuite
for network stack.
# we also have
make {test-valgrind, test-fault-injection} ARCH=lib
but not well tested (of the options themselves) yet.
there are the overview of test facility in my slides (the
link is in my original cover letter email)
> I look forward to a flood of great bugfixes from this work :)
it has not been so much, but the following fix for xfrm
regression was detected by this framework (through jenkins
CI). git bisect is also easy (see tools/testing/libos/bisect.sh).
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/436351/
thanks for the comment.
-- Hajime
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>