On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:18:06AM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > * Ingo Molnar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > * Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > feature request: please make this work in the !modular case as well > > > > - if built-in then it should just run sometime during bootup and run > > > > the tests and report success/failure. This way automated testing can > > > > pick up any regressions much easier. > > > > > > Will try cook up something along those lines. It'll be easy to verify > > > if the probes inserted and removed properly, but verifying handlers > > > run correctly will need some work. > > > > > > We have a sort of regression test bucket that uses expect to parse the > > > dmesg to verify handlers did run correctly; that isn't a totally > > > in-kernel solution anyway. I have a couple of ideas in mind to make it > > > easier. > > > > Great. Would be really nice to have something along the lines of > > CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCKING_API_SELFTESTS. Those unit tests took time to > > develop, but they caught more than 90% (!) of the internal lockdep > > engine bugs before they ever hit mainline. > > > > I would just like to point out that the samples/ directory should keep > files as easy to read and understand for newcomers (it is meant to be > compiled Documentation examples). I see the interest in turning it into > a regression test too, but I would recommend leaving the "test" code out > of the sample module itself to improve readability.
Agreed. I am working on a test bucket that doesn't touch the samples. It'll live on its own, helping with boot time smoke tests. Ananth -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
