On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 09:55:12AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Wed, 8 Aug 2012, Cyril Chemparathy wrote: > > Neat macro magic. Are you thinking that we build this in as a self test in > > the code? > > For such things, this is never a bad idea to have some test alongside > with the main code, especially if this is extended to more cases in the > future. It is too easy to break it in subtle ways. > > See arch/arm/kernel/kprobes-test*.c for a precedent.
Done correctly, it shouldn't be a problem, but I wouldn't say that arch/arm/kernel/kprobes-test*.c is done correctly. It's seen quite a number of patching attempts since it was introduced for various problems, and I've seen quite a number of builds fail for various reasons in this file (none which I could be bothered to investigate.) When the test code ends up causing more problems than the code it's testing, something is definitely wrong. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
