On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 03:10:15PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 11:52:45PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 02:16:51PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 04:37:15PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > > > > tests > > > > > > > > > > Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli (7): > > > > > Add tests/ directory > > > > > Move locking selftests to tests/ > > > > > Move rcutorture to tests/ > > > > > Move rtmutex tester to tests/ > > > > > Move lkdtm to tests/ > > > > > Move kprobes smoke tests to tests/ > > > > > Move backtrace selftests to tests/ > > > > > > > > I have almost given up on this. > > > > Three merge attemps failed for different reasons, > > > > and I will not even have time for my maintainership > > > > duties the next months. > > > > > > > > Anyone that can bring it forward? > > > > > > What are the reasons this is failing? Is it just moving different files > > > around into the tests/ directory? Or is it new functionality here? > > > > > > If just moving stuff, is that really needed? > > > > The incentive was to have a common place to add small tests that > > could be used to verify that the kernel works as expected. > > From inkernel modules (like rcutorture) to small userspace > > utilities such as something massaging the epoll interface or > > similar. > > > > The above was just to get it started. > > Ok, that's great, but the current tree is just the in-kernel tests so > far, right? Right > > Having a set of tests to run when introducing a new syscall > > would make it much easier for an arch maintainer to verify > > that the implemented syscall works as expected. > > > > And forcing the developer to use the interface from user-space > > will hopefully catch a few issues earlier. > > I totally agree that this is a good thing to have. > > But I don't necessarily think that moving the in-kernel tests to this > directory makes that much sense here, wouldn't the in-kernel tests work > out better living next to the code they are testing, like they are right > now? Or do you and others think that moving them would help things > out? I guess at the time, the consensus was to collate all such tests (except the arch specific ones) to under tests/. But yes, there isn't too much difference in it living next to the actual code itself. The other neat thing this would do is to have one config sub-menu for all the in-kernel tests, which can still be done with a new Kconfig in lib/ or something. > And are there any proposed userspace tests in this tree right now? No, it is currently limited to kernel code. Ananth -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
