On Tue, 13 May 2014 16:27:11 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 06:44:30PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Tue, 13 May 2014 15:00:09 -0700 > > "Paul E. McKenney" <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Good points -- I was indeed thinking about stress testing instead of > > > algorithmic testing. > > > > But doesn't lockdep use algorithmic tests too? > > I suppose you could argue that there is no such thing as non-algorithmic > testing, given that all test code uses an algorithm of some sort. Perhaps > with the exception of letting your pet walk across the keyboard. ;-) > > Perhaps I should have instead said that I was thinking about random > testing instead of formal testing? Actually it still applies, but I was mistaken, it's not lockdep itself, it's the LOCKING_API_SELFTESTS. They are a form of formal testing as suppose to random testing. See lib/locking-selftest.c. That looks more like something we can do for the rtmutex code, or even add to it. -- Steve -- 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/
