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 B80344A5 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2017 18:50:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yb0-f169.google.com (mail-yb0-f169.google.com [209.85.213.169]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 229AF248 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2017 18:50:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yb0-f169.google.com with SMTP id e201so57951372ybb.1 for ; Mon, 03 Jul 2017 11:50:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170703123025.7479702e@gandalf.local.home> References: <576cea07-770a-4864-c3f5-0832ff211e94@leemhuis.info> <20170703123025.7479702e@gandalf.local.home> From: Dan Williams Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 11:50:42 -0700 Message-ID: To: Steven Rostedt Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Cc: Linux API , Thorsten Leemhuis , ksummit , Shuah Khan Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] & [TECH TOPIC] Improve regression tracking List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Sun, 2 Jul 2017 19:51:43 +0200 [..] >> >> Ugh, pretty long mail. Sorry about that. Maybe I shouldn't have looked >> so closely into LWN.net articles about regression tracking and older >> discussions about it. > > Anyway, I know that selftests are not the answer for everything, but > anything that has a way to reproduce a bug should be added to it. Sure, > it may depend on various hardware and/or file systems and different > configs, but if we have a central location to place all bug reproducing > tests (which we do have), then we should utilize it. I agree with Steven, and I would add that you don't necessarily need specific hardware to write a test for a driver regression, see examples in tools/testing/nvdimm. I also tend to think that back-stopping regressions with new tests helps with the burn-out problem of tracking regressions. Where building tools and tests is potentially more fulfilling than just bug tracking. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Williams Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] & [TECH TOPIC] Improve regression tracking Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 11:50:42 -0700 Message-ID: References: <576cea07-770a-4864-c3f5-0832ff211e94@leemhuis.info> <20170703123025.7479702e@gandalf.local.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170703123025.7479702e-f9ZlEuEWxVcJvu8Pb33WZ0EMvNT87kid@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Thorsten Leemhuis , Linux API , Shuah Khan , ksummit List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Sun, 2 Jul 2017 19:51:43 +0200 [..] >> >> Ugh, pretty long mail. Sorry about that. Maybe I shouldn't have looked >> so closely into LWN.net articles about regression tracking and older >> discussions about it. > > Anyway, I know that selftests are not the answer for everything, but > anything that has a way to reproduce a bug should be added to it. Sure, > it may depend on various hardware and/or file systems and different > configs, but if we have a central location to place all bug reproducing > tests (which we do have), then we should utilize it. I agree with Steven, and I would add that you don't necessarily need specific hardware to write a test for a driver regression, see examples in tools/testing/nvdimm. I also tend to think that back-stopping regressions with new tests helps with the burn-out problem of tracking regressions. Where building tools and tests is potentially more fulfilling than just bug tracking.