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 ESMTP id 631F882A for ; Tue, 6 May 2014 19:37:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qc0-f179.google.com (mail-qc0-f179.google.com [209.85.216.179]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4BBD201B4 for ; Tue, 6 May 2014 19:37:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qc0-f179.google.com with SMTP id x3so6613864qcv.24 for ; Tue, 06 May 2014 12:37:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20140506175842.GF20776@cloud> Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 13:37:48 -0600 Message-ID: From: Shuah Khan To: Andy Lutomirski Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] Reviewing new API/ABI List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Shuah Khan wrote: >> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 11:58 AM, 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