On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 9:55 PM Knut Omang <knut.om...@oracle.com> wrote:
Sorry for the delayed reply. > > On Wed, 2019-05-22 at 14:02 -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote: > > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 08:36:49PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > > > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 04:44:19PM -0600, shuah wrote: > > > > Hi Sasha and Dhaval, > > > > > > > > On 4/11/19 11:37 AM, Dhaval Giani wrote: > > > > > Hi Folks, > > > > > > > > > > This is a call for participation for the Linux Testing microconference > > > > > at LPC this year. > > > > > > > > > > For those who were at LPC last year, as the closing panel mentioned, > > > > > testing is probably the next big push needed to improve quality. From > > > > > getting more selftests in, to regression testing to ensure we don't > > > > > break realtime as more of PREEMPT_RT comes in, to more stable distros, > > > > > we need more testing around the kernel. > > > > > > > > > > We have talked about different efforts around testing, such as fuzzing > > > > > (using syzkaller and trinity), automating fuzzing with syzbot, 0day > > > > > testing, test frameworks such as ktests, smatch to find bugs in the > > > > > past. We want to push this discussion further this year and are > > > > > interested in hearing from you what you want to talk about, and where > > > > > kernel testing needs to go next. > > > > > > > > > > Please let us know what topics you believe should be a part of the > > > > > micro conference this year. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > Sasha and Dhaval > > > > > > > > > > > > > A talk on KUnit from Brendan Higgins will be good addition to this > > > > Micro-conference. I am cc'ing Brendan on this thread. > > > > > > > > Please consider adding it. > > > > > > FWIW, the topic of unit tests is already on the schedule. There seems to > > > be two different sub-topics here (kunit vs KTF) so there's a good > > > discussion to be had here on many levels. > > > > Cool, so do we just want to go with that? Have a single slot for KUnit > > and KTF combined? > > > > We can each present our work up to this point; maybe offer some > > background and rationale on why we made the decision we have and then we > > can have some moderated discussion on, pros, cons, next steps, etc? > > I definitely had KTF and KUnit in mind when proposing this topic. Awesome! > If you recall from the last time we discussed unit testing, each slot is > fairly limited in time. My plan for the intro for discussion is to Yeah, as per Steven's comment, I also submitted a refereed talk for more detailed stuff. > itemize some of the distinct goals we try to achieve with our frameworks and > have a > discussion based on that. In light of the discussion around your patch sets, Sounds good to me. One thing I would like to talk about is maybe trying to classify different categories of tests (unit vs. integration vs. end-to-end), where they fit into the Linux kernel, how prescriptivist should we be in categorization and what a test is for, etc. I think this has been a point of disagreement/confusion on my patchsets as well. > one topic is also the question of whether a common API would be > useful/desired, > and whether we can "capture" a short namespace for that. I am not opposed. This could potentially tie in to what kind of test something is as I mentioned above. In anycase, sounds like there is a lot of room for good discussion. Thanks!