Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] Testing

[Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1489 bytes --]

On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 02:47:25PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Mark Brown <broonie@sirena.org.uk> 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.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]