Re: [PATCH 1/2] kselftests: timers: Make set-timer-lat fail more gracefully for !CAP_WAKE_ALARM

[Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com>]

On 03/26/2015 01:33 PM, Tyler Baker wrote:
> On 26 March 2015 at 09:29, John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On 03/25/2015 07:44 PM, John Stultz wrote:
>>>> +                     printf("%-22s %s missing CAP_WAKE_ALARM?    : [UNSUPPORTED]\n",
>>>> +                                     clockstring(clock_id),
>>>> +                                     flags ? "ABSTIME":"RELTIME");
>>>
>>> Something to think about:  Do you want to write these tests to be more human
>>> readable or machine readable?  In theory with awk I guess it doesn't matter too
>>> much, however, it is something that we should think about moving forward.
>>
>> So this came up at ELC in a few discussions. Right now there isn't any
>> established output format, but there's some nice and simple
>> infrastructure for counting pass/fails.
>>
>> However, in talking to Tyler, I know he has started looking at how to
>> integrate the selftests into our automated infrastructure and was
>> interested in how we improve the output parsing for reports. So there
>> is interest in improving this, and I'm open to whatever changes might
>> be needed (adding extra arguments to the test to put them into "easy
>> parse" mode or whatever).
> 
> Thanks for looping me in John. My interest in kselftest stems from my
> involvement with kernelci.org, a communityservice focused on upstream
> kernel validation across multiple architectures. In it's current form,
> it is merely build and boot testing boards. However, we are at a point
> where we'd like to start running some tests. The automation framework
> (LAVA) used to execute these tests essentially uses a regular
> expression to parse the test's standard output. This is advantageous
> as a test can be written in any language, as long as it produces sane
> uniform output.
> 
> Ideally, we would like to perform the kernel builds as we do today
> along with building all the kseltests present in the tree, and
> inserting them into a 'testing' ramdisk for deployment. Once we
> successfully boot the platform, we execute all the kselftests, parse
> standard out, and report the results. The benefit from this
> implementation is that a developer writing a test does have to do
> anything 'special' to get his/her test to run once it has been applied
> to a upstream tree. I'll explain below some concerns I have about
> accomplishing this.
> 
> Currently, we have had to write wrappers[1][2] for some kselftests to
> be able parse the output. If we can choose/agree on a standard output
> format all of this complexity goes away, and then we can dynamically
> run kselftests. Integration of new tests will not be needed, as they
> all produce output in standard way. I've taken a look at the wiki page
> for standardizing output[3] and TAP looks like the good format IMO.
> 
> Also, for arch != x86 there are some barriers to overcome to get all
> the kselftests cross compiling, which would be nice to have as well.
> 
> I realize this may be a good amount of work, so I'd like to help out.
> Perhaps working John to convert his timer tests to use TAP output
> would be a good starting point?

John, I could probably do that for you.  I'm always willing to give it a shot.

> 
>>
>> thanks
>> -john
> 
> [1] https://git.linaro.org/qa/test-definitions.git/blob/HEAD:/common/scripts/kselftest-runner.sh
> [2] https://git.linaro.org/qa/test-definitions.git/blob/HEAD:/common/scripts/kselftest-mqueue.sh
> [3] https://kselftest.wiki.kernel.org/standardize_the_test_output

I'll go off and look at this and wait for the current patchset(s) to make it
into Linus' tree before posting or suggesting patches.

P.

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Tyler
>