On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 12:11 AM Knut Omang knut.omang@oracle.com wrote:
On Thu, 2019-03-21 at 18:41 -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 6:10 PM Frank Rowand frowand.list@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/27/19 11:42 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 10:44 PM Frank Rowand frowand.list@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/19/19 7:39 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:52 AM Frank Rowand frowand.list@gmail.com wrote: > On 2/14/19 1:37 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
< snip >
> kunit_abort() is what will be call as the result of an assert > failure.
Yep. Does that need clarified somewhere. > BUG(), which is a panic, which is crashing the system is not > acceptable > in the Linux kernel. You will just annoy Linus if you submit this.
Sorry, I thought this was an acceptable use case since, a) this should never be compiled in a production kernel, b) we are in a pretty bad, unpredictable state if we get here and keep going. I think you might have said elsewhere that you think "a" is not valid? In any case, I can replace this with a WARN, would that be acceptable?
A WARN may or may not make sense, depending on the context. It may be sufficient to simply report a test failure (as in the old version of case (2) below.
Answers to "a)" and "b)":
a) it might be in a production kernel
Sorry for a possibly stupid question, how might it be so? Why would someone intentionally build unit tests into a production kernel?
People do things. Just expect it.
Huh, alright. I will take your word for it then.
I have a better explanation: Production kernels have bugs, unfortunately. And sometimes those need to be investigated on systems than cannot be brought down or affected more than absolutely necessary, maybe via a third party doing the execution. A light weight, precise test (well tested ahead :) ) might be a way of proving or disproving assumptions that can lead to the development and application of a fix.
Sorry, you are not suggesting testing in production are you? To be clear, I am not concerned about someone using testing, KUnit, or whatever in a *production-like* environment: that's not what we are talking about here. My assumption is that no one will deploy tests into actual production.
IMHO you're confusing "building into" with temporary applying, then removing again - like the difference between running a local user space program vs installing it under /usr and have it in everyone's PATH.
I don't really see the point of distinguishing between "building into" and "temporary applying" in this case; that's part of my point. Maybe it makes sense in whitebox end-to-end testing, but in the case of unit testing, I don't think so.
a') it is not acceptable in my development kernel either
I think one of the fundamental properties of a good test framework is that it should not require changes to the code under test by itself.
Sure, but that has nothing to do with the environment the code/tests are running in.
< snip >
Cheers