On 04/02/2015 11:17 AM, Tyler Baker wrote: > On 2 April 2015 at 06:43, Shuah Khan <shua...@osg.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.stu...@linaro.org> wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Prarit Bhargava <pra...@redhat.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 :) >
The harness has to cover tests in written in C as well as shell scripts. I added a simple framework in kselftest.h as a step towards harness. However, it needs more work. I would welcome any patches that would provide a harness that meets the needs of external selftest use-cases such as yours. Is writing a simple TAP compliant harness something you can take on?? Looking for volunteers :) thanks, -- Shuah -- Shuah Khan Sr. Linux Kernel Developer Open Source Innovation Group Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley) shua...@osg.samsung.com | (970) 217-8978 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/