Date:	Thu, 2 Apr 2015 10:17:08 -0700
From:	Tyler Baker <tyler.baker@...aro.org>
To:	Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>
Cc:	Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kselftests: timers: Make set-timer-lat fail more
 gracefully for !CAP_WAKE_ALARM

On 2 April 2015 at 06:43, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com> wrote:
> On 04/02/2015 04:18 AM, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 03/26/2015 01:33 PM, Tyler Baker wrote:
>>> On 26 March 2015 at 09:29, John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 03/25/2015 07:44 PM, John Stultz wrote:
>>>>>> +                     printf("%-22s %s missing CAP_WAKE_ALARM?    : [UNSUPPORTED]\n",
>>>>>> +                                     clockstring(clock_id),
>>>>>> +                                     flags ? "ABSTIME":"RELTIME");
>>>>>
>>>>> Something to think about:  Do you want to write these tests to be more human
>>>>> readable or machine readable?  In theory with awk I guess it doesn't matter too
>>>>> much, however, it is something that we should think about moving forward.
>>>>
>>>> So this came up at ELC in a few discussions. Right now there isn't any
>>>> established output format, but there's some nice and simple
>>>> infrastructure for counting pass/fails.
>>>>
>>>> However, in talking to Tyler, I know he has started looking at how to
>>>> integrate the selftests into our automated infrastructure and was
>>>> interested in how we improve the output parsing for reports. So there
>>>> is interest in improving this, and I'm open to whatever changes might
>>>> be needed (adding extra arguments to the test to put them into "easy
>>>> parse" mode or whatever).
>>>
>>> Thanks for looping me in John. My interest in kselftest stems from my
>>> involvement with kernelci.org, a communityservice focused on upstream
>>> kernel validation across multiple architectures. In it's current form,
>>> it is merely build and boot testing boards. However, we are at a point
>>> where we'd like to start running some tests. The automation framework
>>> (LAVA) used to execute these tests essentially uses a regular
>>> expression to parse the test's standard output. This is advantageous
>>> as a test can be written in any language, as long as it produces sane
>>> uniform output.
>>>
>>> Ideally, we would like to perform the kernel builds as we do today
>>> along with building all the kseltests present in the tree, and
>>> inserting them into a 'testing' ramdisk for deployment. Once we
>>> successfully boot the platform, we execute all the kselftests, parse
>>> standard out, and report the results. The benefit from this
>>> implementation is that a developer writing a test does have to do
>>> anything 'special' to get his/her test to run once it has been applied
>>> to a upstream tree. I'll explain below some concerns I have about
>>> accomplishing this.
>>>
>>> Currently, we have had to write wrappers[1][2] for some kselftests to
>>> be able parse the output. If we can choose/agree on a standard output
>>> format all of this complexity goes away, and then we can dynamically
>>> run kselftests. Integration of new tests will not be needed, as they
>>> all produce output in standard way. I've taken a look at the wiki page
>>> for standardizing output[3] and TAP looks like the good format IMO.
>>>
>>> Also, for arch != x86 there are some barriers to overcome to get all
>>> the kselftests cross compiling, which would be nice to have as well.
>>>
>>> I realize this may be a good amount of work, so I'd like to help out.
>>> Perhaps working John to convert his timer tests to use TAP output
>>> would be a good starting point?
>>
>> John, I could probably do that for you.  I'm always willing to give it a shot.
>>
>
> Improving reporting and output is a good idea, as long as the
> reporting framework doesn't add external dependencies and makes
> it difficult to build and run tests from the kernel git tree
> environment. Being able to run tests on a development system
> is the primary objective for these tests.
>
> As long as the TAP doesn't require additional libraries and
> tools to be installed on the development systems, I will be
> happy with the improvements to reporting and output.

This is a very valid concern IMO. There is a C library for TAP
providers[0] but I agree we want to avoid external libraries as
dependencies. Perhaps, it would be simple enough to write a selftest
harness that provides a basic interface for displaying test results,
messages, and warning/errors. This harness would ensure all the
logging was done in a TAP compliant manner. Food for thought :)

>
> thanks,
> -- Shuah
>
> --
> Shuah Khan
> Sr. Linux Kernel Developer
> Open Source Innovation Group
> Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley)
> shuahkh@....samsung.com | (970) 217-8978

Cheers,

Tyler

[0] http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/software/c-tap-harness/
--
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