Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] & [TECH TOPIC] Improve regression tracking

[Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com>]

On 07/06/2017 04:32 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 16:24:01 -0600
> Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> Over the past couple of years, kselftests have seen improvements to run
>> on ARM in kernel ci rings. TAP13 will definitely make it easier to find
>> run to run differences. There is the effort to use ksefltests to test
>> stable releases (4.4 LTS for example), which will help make the tests
>> fail/skip gracefully when a feature isn't enabled/supported.
>>
>> The work so far is two fold:
>>
>> - enable them to run in test rings.
>> - making them easy to use
>>
>> As per test development, we are constantly adding tests and I see new tests
>> getting added for sub-systems that aren't hardware dependent. You will see
>> lots of activity in mm, timers, seccomp, net, sys-calls to name a few.
>>
>> I am going to be looking for TAP13 format compliance for new tests starting
>> 4.13.
>>
>> I am not sure how popular they are among developers and sub-system maintainers
>> though. Maybe this is one area we can try to improve usage.

As a clarification, what I meant by "how popular they are among developers and
sub-system maintainers" is that how often developers and sub-system maintainers
run kselftests and are there any obstacles for running them.

It would be good to get feedback on usage by us as in developers.

> 
> Maybe this should be included in the MAINTAINERS SUMMIT as well. To
> consolidate the format of all the kselftests and have something that
> everyone (or most) developers agree on.


thanks,
-- Shuah