[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAC5umyhscXSU6S6KAzawjsDvzrVjgA8RT7+DojVcLMX736QjUw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 13:49:09 +0900
From: Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] notifier error injection
2011/7/22 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 10:16:01 +0900
> Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> This provides the ability to inject artifical errors to the following
>> notifier chain callbacks. It is useful to test the error handling of
>> notifier call chain failures.
>
> That all looks very nice, but I wonder how many people are actually
> using these things. The injection framework itself doesn't seem to
> have had a lot of uptake.
>
> I wonder if we could improve things by adding an easy-to-run testing
> script which identifies all the available error-injection inputs,
> exercises them and then reports on the result?
>
> Such a script would logically reside under ./tests/fault-injection/,
> but we still don't have a tests/ directory. Which perhaps tells us
> something ;)
Sounds goood. I'll create shell script that detects hot-pluggable CPU
or memory block and runs quick tests.
BTW, the patchset has been rewritten to be kernel modules rather than
initializing at late_initcall()s. The reason for switching to kernel
modules is to provide an easy way to specify notifier priority as
module parameter. I'll send newer patchset soon.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists