On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 12:11 AM Knut Omang <knut.omang(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/27/19 11:42 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 10:44 PM Frank Rowand
> > > wrote:
> > > > On 2/19/19 7:39 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:52 AM Frank Rowand
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > On 2/14/19 1:37 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > > > > > 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
> > > > > > acceptable
> > > > > > in the Linux kernel. You will just annoy Linus if you
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry, I thought this was an acceptable use case since, a) this
> > > > > never be compiled in a production kernel, b) we are in a pretty
> > > > > unpredictable state if we get here and keep going. I think you
> > > > > 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
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 >