From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B9E4982 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 10:43:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mezzanine.sirena.org.uk (mezzanine.sirena.org.uk [106.187.55.193]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73A67AA for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 10:43:41 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 11:43:22 +0100 From: Mark Brown To: Steven Rostedt Message-ID: <20150708104322.GO11162@sirena.org.uk> References: <20150707092434.GE11162@sirena.org.uk> <20150707131411.GI2887@sirena.org.uk> <20150707144725.6a19727f@gandalf.local.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="H/P/fp31Su+ob3Cg" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150707144725.6a19727f@gandalf.local.home> Cc: Shuah Khan , Kevin Hilman , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Tyler Baker , Dan Carpenter Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] Testing List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --H/P/fp31Su+ob3Cg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 02:47:25PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > Mark Brown wrote: > > Perhaps, perhaps not - it's not an unequivocal thing either way. The > > more barriers there are to enabling things the more likely it is that > > people just won't bother in the first place (or that they'll run into > > somme problem and give up before they get things working) and it's not > > clear that having to figure these things out is always a good use of > > people's time. > The testing/selftests tests should have three results: PASS, FAIL, > UNSUPPORTED. The UNSUPPORTED is what should be returned if the kernel > configuration doesn't have the needed features configured. For example, > if you run the ftrace selftests without function tracing enabled, all > the tests that test the function tracer return UNSUPPORTED. That's roughly what they're supposed to be doing now (I'd need to go check exactly what happens in the unsupported case). > Perhaps we should have a central location that each test needs to add > the required configuration for it to be properly tested. Then if users > want to test various subsystems, they would look in this location for > the proper configs (be it a directory that has files of the tests they > represent, and contain the configs needed). Then there should be no > real barrier for people to run these tests. Right, this is what I'm suggesting roughly - make the configurations required to run tests easier to pick up. --H/P/fp31Su+ob3Cg Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVnP7KAAoJECTWi3JdVIfQb0oH/0gFsJ7JdTGJJBQS1fSwvfVr 6mUOs5faPFkxtLOf3M+zRmbh5aR32TzVLHobe/na1dCeBEfQVoqDX5mKSQKuyqfC UsHF/B2DC0KFSPdoxUPcXVVPS8p5I6DNplAhmoS/0bqx2xDyE6glDKEJGxroUsGa vkyg28+TjQlkEuR70an926Hml2IGtxSObdVDqJDn1BDyhVduMICj9Mbupmm1SokK lme4+iL9SX8BXynAq0XerqcwO3katogbSQcTGrKWvnV3andJyzO/SmmzXGYEdaDO fPZxK1fTVNKsUPnbTDORTBcNWJBf1/2SDMaGWliK3CMEXxu9AMso/t+J1bv2QP8= =hm82 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --H/P/fp31Su+ob3Cg--