[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.2002141024141.1579-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 10:27:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] tools/memory-model: Add litmus tests for atomic APIs
On Fri, 14 Feb 2020, Boqun Feng wrote:
> A recent discussion raises up the requirement for having test cases for
> atomic APIs:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200213085849.GL14897@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net/
>
> , and since we already have a way to generate a test module from a
> litmus test with klitmus[1]. It makes sense that we add more litmus
> tests for atomic APIs into memory-model.
It might be worth discussing this point a little more fully. The
set of tests in tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/ is deliberately rather
limited. Paul has a vastly more expansive set of litmus tests in a
GitHub repository, and I am doubtful about how many new tests we want
to keep in the kernel source.
Perhaps it makes sense to have tests corresponding to all the examples
in Documentation/, perhaps not. How do people feel about this?
Alan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists