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 C6B40B9B for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 17:03:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from out02.mta.xmission.com (out02.mta.xmission.com [166.70.13.232]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 266171B3 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 17:03:04 +0000 (UTC) From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Steven Rostedt References: <576cea07-770a-4864-c3f5-0832ff211e94@leemhuis.info> <20170703123025.7479702e@gandalf.local.home> <20170705084528.67499f8c@gandalf.local.home> <4080ecc7-1aa8-2940-f230-1b79d656cdb4@redhat.com> <20170705092757.63dc2328@gandalf.local.home> <20170705140607.GA30187@kroah.com> <20170705112707.54d7f345@gandalf.local.home> <20170705130200.7c653f61@gandalf.local.home> Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 11:54:45 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20170705130200.7c653f61@gandalf.local.home> (Steven Rostedt's message of "Wed, 5 Jul 2017 13:02:00 -0400") Message-ID: <87zibkzgve.fsf@xmission.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Carlos O'Donell , linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Thorsten Leemhuis , 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: , Steven Rostedt writes: > On Wed, 5 Jul 2017 09:48:31 -0700 > Guenter Roeck wrote: > >> On 07/05/2017 08:27 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: >> > On Wed, 5 Jul 2017 08:16:33 -0700 >> > Guenter Roeck wrote: >> [ ... ] >> >> >> >> If we start shaming people for not providing unit tests, all we'll accomplish is >> >> that people will stop providing bug fixes. >> > >> > I need to be clearer on this. What I meant was, if there's a bug >> > where someone has a test that easily reproduces the bug, then if >> > there's not a test added to selftests for said bug, then we should >> > shame those into doing so. >> > >> >> I don't think that public shaming of kernel developers is going to work >> any better than public shaming of children or teenagers. >> >> Maybe a friendlier approach would be more useful ? > > I'm a friendly shamer ;-) > >> >> If a test to reproduce a problem exists, it might be more beneficial to suggest >> to the patch submitter that it would be great if that test would be submitted >> as unit test instead of shaming that person for not doing so. Acknowledging and >> praising kselftest submissions might help more than shaming for non-submissions. >> >> > A bug that is found by inspection or hard to reproduce test cases are >> > not applicable, as they don't have tests that can show a regression. >> > >> >> My concern would be that once the shaming starts, it won't stop. > > I think this is a communication issue. My word for "shaming" was to > call out a developer for not submitting a test. It wasn't about making > fun of them, or anything like that. I was only making a point > about how to teach people that they need to be more aware of the > testing infrastructure. Not about actually demeaning people. > > Lets take a hypothetical sample. Say someone posted a bug report with > an associated reproducer for it. The developer then runs the reproducer > sees the bug, makes a fix and sends it to Linus and stable. Now the > developer forgets this and continues on their merry way. Along comes > someone like myself and sees a reproducing test case for a bug, but > sees no test added to kselftests. I would send an email along the lines > of "Hi, I noticed that there was a reproducer for this bug you fixed. > How come there was no test added to the kselftests to make sure it > doesn't appear again?" There, I "shamed" them ;-) I just want to point out that kselftests are hard to build and run. As I was looking at another issue I found a bug in one of the tests. It had defined a constant wrong. I have a patch. It took me a week of poking at the kselftest code and trying one thing or another (between working on other things) before I could figure out which combination of things would let the test build and run. Until kselftests get easier to run I don't think they are something we want to push to hard. Eric