Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] Reviewing new API/ABI

[Shuah Khan <shuahkhan@gmail.com>]

On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Shuah Khan <shuahkhan@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 11:58 AM,  <josh@joshtriplett.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm interested in this topic, and I'll second that nomination.  I'd
>>> like to partipate in this discussion.
>>>
>>> We need to have better processes for vetting new syscalls and ABIs far
>>> more carefully than we currently do.  Right now, we require benchmarks
>>> for any claimed performance increase; it's almost a given that if you
>>> post an optimization without including benchmarks in the commit message,
>>> it'll get rejected with a request to come back with numbers.  We need
>>> similar standards for new syscalls or other userspace ABIs: come back
>>> with test programs, test coverage information, etc.
>>>
>>
>> I am interested in this topic as well. To be effective and keep the
>> momentum going long term , we will need a way to regression test when
>> new APIs, new syscalls and ABIs are introduced. That would require a
>> look at existing tests and look into putting in some kind of framework
>> to easily test for regressions. It would also mean, when new API, ABIs
>> get added, "strongly" encourage developers add documentation and tests
>> cases.
>
> I think there was some discussion about in-tree kernel tests.  This
> might fit in.
>

I am proposing adding regression test angle to this discussion. Review
is a good first step, however to ensure breakages don't occur, we have
to go one step further.

-- Shuah