From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9179DCA9EC8 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 23:08:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69DD521D7A for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 23:08:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="JRJk2uQN" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2441703AbfJQXIO (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Oct 2019 19:08:14 -0400 Received: from mail-qt1-f194.google.com ([209.85.160.194]:37078 "EHLO mail-qt1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2441702AbfJQXIO (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Oct 2019 19:08:14 -0400 Received: by mail-qt1-f194.google.com with SMTP id n17so6203102qtr.4 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 16:08:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Y+MGmFsYUsxNj4AMmnTJu8GDORDKVCeL1MCXSowaqwY=; b=JRJk2uQNwZlLmFLpw82AoLezikHqkV3ZYsbtvvyU7SMwoq63xsUvXTGoO4Ax7ifTGN IbDMebpJLpnXo5tLIf5nT/lTftc5IzqvDVGXVXutG1PxobOHjubjAmDHWRDRnLmIn0p3 ymETpOK47QQQHBvsUqYCs9a9mdpIFIOkCDDun6cxIg9Lm2K+6dIH2nkDqap8UfDry1GB w1yiznEgcyHcJa3Vg4V+ySVfJ+wd0coaKOsDiI/y78PJGSYlqSTB83+vrxTGqBgsowcO ZIaJYH7/kaodyh9F3tWdySVUVYtmJ2wXwwJ7L2tfxmjOkMV3mzz2nIzMqlpqpJToQdBB VZ1w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Y+MGmFsYUsxNj4AMmnTJu8GDORDKVCeL1MCXSowaqwY=; b=jbwCerkj7++D4BLY0sNivOr2Q6fbHFnZ7bdAOhur1m34QZmxtN45Z9v3NvAa+aM/32 lNuf1pOAQKYk1Iovgi9vYAfO7bVIEk3lUj8ArIbtHMgwF2uP1zBErMzCLsasylR6g4oA KBqkEa9SEVeXoZg9y6dQ1tfvFT5w/rC1EIHWDfys9RODY3BUAjA5efpBbtE/+V5Pm6XP p1VBI9pXjRKE7RLUU/JE+LehhHXiSS5unv3EWYiUqyl88dc8orqOtvSnoUSnEj1fNULn qyvXuROFeQ1DjbACPxKJdy7gl2bc+GbGXwsmmazmLUrq/GJKKAg6+fb3+MUyA6ISD8kS WHqQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWL+QG9zRfz5yRoltmzk04cUZsUknw5846vgVkGGyz9FtO9hD6x RjFZ7lA3FSiONcVAAemILWKSZP2Rc8JbAAjf9+qJQvo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwp6n7+BXzD/lu+1d9bRBLTh9XRjzD48NywJn/eB3f9R6NzZBoEWUwlvy3rIZVCrA77Lf+qp1D6WKTwMnVeH50= X-Received: by 2002:ac8:610e:: with SMTP id a14mr6771951qtm.189.1571353693215; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 16:08:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20191010023931.230475-1-yzaikin@google.com> <2f2ea7b0-f683-1cdd-f3f2-ecdf44cb4a97@linuxfoundation.org> <20191011131902.GC16225@mit.edu> <1e6611e6-2fa6-6f7d-bc7f-0bc2243d9342@linuxfoundation.org> <20191017120833.GA25548@mit.edu> <957434b6-32cc-487f-f48e-f9c4416b3f60@linuxfoundation.org> In-Reply-To: <957434b6-32cc-487f-f48e-f9c4416b3f60@linuxfoundation.org> From: Iurii Zaikin Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 16:07:36 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-kselftest/test v2] ext4: add kunit test for decoding extended timestamps To: Shuah Khan Cc: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" , Brendan Higgins , "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, KUnit Development Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kselftest-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org > Having the ability to take test data doesn't make it non-deterministic > though. It just means that if user wants to test with a different set > of data, there is no need to recompile the test. This could be helpful > to test cases the test write didn't think about. > Again, unit tests are not meant to be babysat. They are intended to become a part of the codebase and be run against every proposed change to ensure the change doesn't break anything. The whole process is supposed to be fully automated. Imagine a KUnit test run for all tests that gets kicked off as soon as a patch shows up in Patchwork and the maintainers getting the test run results. If you can think of a test that the change author didn't for a new corner case, then you as the maintainer ask the change author to add such test. Or if some corner case comes up as a result of a bug then the new case is submitted with the fix. This is how unit testing is deployed in the larger software world. In the most enlightened places a change will not be accepted unless it's accompanied by the unit tests that offer good coverage for the possible inputs and code paths. A change that breaks existing tests is either incorrect and has to be fixed or the existing tests need to be updated for the behavior change.