Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] refactor code and mark expected switch fall-throughs

[f6bvp]

Hi all,
I just want to report that I applied the NetRom patch to most recent kernel. 
NetRom does not seem to be affected and connexion is doing well between my FPAC 
node f6bvp and f3kt.

73 de Bernard f6bvp

Sent from my iPhone

> Le 29 oct. 2017 à 05:15, David Ranch  a écrit :
> 
> 
> Hello David,
> 
> Thanks for the reply.  I completely admit that there aren't many changes 
> going into this section of code.  Unfortunately, we've had some nasty breaks 
> that took quite a long while to get fixed.
> 
> Can you point me in the direction of this kbuild test robot (URLs, etc) so I 
> can better understand if it makes sense to add tests there?  For example, do 
> you know if it's "changed based" so only certain tests will run if given 
> files are updated?
> 
> --David
> KI6ZHD
> 
> 
>> On 10/28/2017 06:45 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> From: David Ranch 
>> Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 10:53:24 -0700
>> 
>>> Does anyone else have thoughts on this topic?
>> 
>> I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.
>> 
>> If you care so much about this, set things up so that entities such as
>> the kbuild test robot run whatever tests you think are necessary.
>> 
>> Otherwise, continually test the stack yourself and report any
>> regressions here as fast as you can.
>> 
>> If soemone can't be bothered to verify or test someone's change in 2
>> or 3 days, except in extreme circumstances, I absolutely refuse to
>> burdon the submitter and let their patches rot in the queue.
>> 
>> That's unacceptable.
>> 
>> That's the proper way to deal with this, without unreasonably
>> burdoning people who just want to keep the code across the tree modern
>> and more up to date.
>> 
>> Thank you.

Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] refactor code and mark expected switch fall-throughs

[Gustavo A. R. Silva]

Quoting David Miller :


From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" 
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 00:50:57 -0500

The aim of this patchset is firstly to refactor code in nr_route.c  
in order to make it
easier to read and maintain and, secondly, to mark some expected  
switch fall-throughs

in preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough.

I have to mention that I did not implement any unit test.
If someone has any suggestions on how I could test this piece of code
it'd be greatly appreciated.


Series applied, thank you.


Glad to help.

Thanks
--
Gustavo A. R. Silva

Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] refactor code and mark expected switch fall-throughs

[David Miller]

From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" 
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 00:50:57 -0500

> The aim of this patchset is firstly to refactor code in nr_route.c in order 
> to make it
> easier to read and maintain and, secondly, to mark some expected switch 
> fall-throughs
> in preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough.
> 
> I have to mention that I did not implement any unit test.
> If someone has any suggestions on how I could test this piece of code
> it'd be greatly appreciated.

Series applied, thank you.

Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] refactor code and mark expected switch fall-throughs

[David Ranch]

Hello David,

Thanks for the reply.  I completely admit that there aren't many changes 
going into this section of code.  Unfortunately, we've had some nasty 
breaks that took quite a long while to get fixed.


Can you point me in the direction of this kbuild test robot (URLs, etc) 
so I can better understand if it makes sense to add tests there?  For 
example, do you know if it's "changed based" so only certain tests will 
run if given files are updated?


--David
KI6ZHD


On 10/28/2017 06:45 PM, David Miller wrote:

From: David Ranch 
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 10:53:24 -0700


Does anyone else have thoughts on this topic?


I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

If you care so much about this, set things up so that entities such as
the kbuild test robot run whatever tests you think are necessary.

Otherwise, continually test the stack yourself and report any
regressions here as fast as you can.

If soemone can't be bothered to verify or test someone's change in 2
or 3 days, except in extreme circumstances, I absolutely refuse to
burdon the submitter and let their patches rot in the queue.

That's unacceptable.

That's the proper way to deal with this, without unreasonably
burdoning people who just want to keep the code across the tree modern
and more up to date.

Thank you.

Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] refactor code and mark expected switch fall-throughs

[David Miller]

From: David Ranch 
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 10:53:24 -0700

> Does anyone else have thoughts on this topic?

I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

If you care so much about this, set things up so that entities such as
the kbuild test robot run whatever tests you think are necessary.

Otherwise, continually test the stack yourself and report any
regressions here as fast as you can.

If soemone can't be bothered to verify or test someone's change in 2
or 3 days, except in extreme circumstances, I absolutely refuse to
burdon the submitter and let their patches rot in the queue.

That's unacceptable.

That's the proper way to deal with this, without unreasonably
burdoning people who just want to keep the code across the tree modern
and more up to date.

Thank you.

Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] refactor code and mark expected switch fall-throughs

[David Ranch]

Hello Gustavo,

Thanks for the reply.  I do appreciate the work but we've had other 
people contribute to keep things up to date but previous minor patches 
broke parts of the AX.25 stack in strange ways.  The fixes weren't hard 
to repair or backout but due to the timing, various Linux distros based 
their releases on the broken kernel code and it's taken a LONG time to
get things healthy for them.  We need be able provide a test harness to 
developers to unit test / regression test their proposed code ideally 
AHEAD of the commit but at least after the commit.


I'm still failing to find any Linux groups that offer some sort of 
automated build & test environment (Travis, Jenkins, etc) tracking 
various kernel branches, etc.  It's gotta be out there (many of them in 
fact) but I'm struggling to find them.


For example, here is an excellent article about what *Intel* is doing 
for their graphics drivers but I need something that the general 
community can leverage for say various protocol stacks (TCP/IP, AX.25, 
whatever):


   https://lwn.net/Articles/735468/

From that article, it seems that maybe this could be a good place to start:

   https://01.org/lkp
   https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests

Looks like a good start but is that what the majority of the Linux 
kernel folk use today?  Is it the right group for non-scaled out unit 
testing that I seek?  I also think this email-centric approach might be 
an overly broad approach with WAY too much noise for various development 
areas.


Does anyone else have thoughts on this topic?

--David
KI6ZHD


On 10/27/2017 12:48 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:

Hi David,

Quoting David Ranch :


Hello Gustavo,

I appreciate you working on keeping up the kernel and maintaining some
of the older feature areas like AX.25, Netrom, etc.  Other than
auditing your code changes, can you tell me what you're changing? I've
been attempting to find who / where does regression tests for the
Linus kernel to potentially ADD test suites for this area.  In the
recent past, we have seen a lot of toxicity creep into the kernel
because no one is testing their changes and backing out this toxic
code out of released Linux distributions takes a VERY long time.



Here you can see the patch I'm proposing to refactor some code:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10029119/

It does not add any new functionality. It's just a small function that
helps to modularize and reduce the size of the code in the nr_add_node()
function.

The function I'm proposing (re_sort_routes) re-sort the routes in
quality order. It takes as arguments a pointer to the nr_node structure
which contains the routes within and the indexes of the routes to re-sort.

This function also replaces a "manual" swap of the routes with a call to
the swap macro.

Thanks
--
Gustavo A. R. Silva


I'm willing to try and help here but I really would like to follow
some team's guidelines of how they would like tests to be created,
supported, etc.  Be it in VMs, containers, specific automation
languages, etc.

--David
KI6ZHD




On 10/26/2017 10:50 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:

The aim of this patchset is firstly to refactor code in nr_route.c in
order to make it
easier to read and maintain and, secondly, to mark some expected
switch fall-throughs
in preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough.

I have to mention that I did not implement any unit test.
If someone has any suggestions on how I could test this piece of code
it'd be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Changes in v2:
 - Make use of the swap macro and remove inline keyword as suggested by
   Walter Harms and Kevin Dawson.

Changes in v3:
 - Update subject for both patches.
 - Add this cover letter as suggested by David Miller.

Gustavo A. R. Silva (2):
  net: netrom: nr_route: refactor code in nr_add_node
  net: netrom: nr_route: mark expected switch fall-throughs

 net/netrom/nr_route.c | 62
---
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)

Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] refactor code and mark expected switch fall-throughs

[Gustavo A. R. Silva]

Hi David,

Quoting David Ranch :


Hello Gustavo,

I appreciate you working on keeping up the kernel and maintaining  
some of the older feature areas like AX.25, Netrom, etc.  Other than  
auditing your code changes, can you tell me what you're changing?  
I've been attempting to find who / where does regression tests for  
the Linus kernel to potentially ADD test suites for this area.  In  
the recent past, we have seen a lot of toxicity creep into the  
kernel because no one is testing their changes and backing out this  
toxic code out of released Linux distributions takes a VERY long time.




Here you can see the patch I'm proposing to refactor some code:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10029119/

It does not add any new functionality. It's just a small function that  
helps to modularize and reduce the size of the code in the  
nr_add_node() function.


The function I'm proposing (re_sort_routes) re-sort the routes in  
quality order. It takes as arguments a pointer to the nr_node  
structure which contains the routes within and the indexes of the  
routes to re-sort.


This function also replaces a "manual" swap of the routes with a call  
to the swap macro.


Thanks
--
Gustavo A. R. Silva

I'm willing to try and help here but I really would like to follow  
some team's guidelines of how they would like tests to be created,  
supported, etc.  Be it in VMs, containers, specific automation  
languages, etc.


--David
KI6ZHD




On 10/26/2017 10:50 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
The aim of this patchset is firstly to refactor code in nr_route.c  
in order to make it
easier to read and maintain and, secondly, to mark some expected  
switch fall-throughs

in preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough.

I have to mention that I did not implement any unit test.
If someone has any suggestions on how I could test this piece of code
it'd be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Changes in v2:
 - Make use of the swap macro and remove inline keyword as suggested by
   Walter Harms and Kevin Dawson.

Changes in v3:
 - Update subject for both patches.
 - Add this cover letter as suggested by David Miller.

Gustavo A. R. Silva (2):
  net: netrom: nr_route: refactor code in nr_add_node
  net: netrom: nr_route: mark expected switch fall-throughs

 net/netrom/nr_route.c | 62  
---

 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)

Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] refactor code and mark expected switch fall-throughs

[David Ranch]

Hello Gustavo,

I appreciate you working on keeping up the kernel and maintaining some 
of the older feature areas like AX.25, Netrom, etc.  Other than auditing 
your code changes, can you tell me what you're changing? I've been 
attempting to find who / where does regression tests for the Linus 
kernel to potentially ADD test suites for this area.  In the recent 
past, we have seen a lot of toxicity creep into the kernel because no 
one is testing their changes and backing out this toxic code out of 
released Linux distributions takes a VERY long time.


I'm willing to try and help here but I really would like to follow some 
team's guidelines of how they would like tests to be created, supported, 
etc.  Be it in VMs, containers, specific automation languages, etc.


--David
KI6ZHD




On 10/26/2017 10:50 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:

The aim of this patchset is firstly to refactor code in nr_route.c in order to 
make it
easier to read and maintain and, secondly, to mark some expected switch 
fall-throughs
in preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough.

I have to mention that I did not implement any unit test.
If someone has any suggestions on how I could test this piece of code
it'd be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Changes in v2:
  - Make use of the swap macro and remove inline keyword as suggested by
Walter Harms and Kevin Dawson.

Changes in v3:
  - Update subject for both patches.
  - Add this cover letter as suggested by David Miller.

Gustavo A. R. Silva (2):
   net: netrom: nr_route: refactor code in nr_add_node
   net: netrom: nr_route: mark expected switch fall-throughs

  net/netrom/nr_route.c | 62 ---
  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)

[PATCH v3 0/2] refactor code and mark expected switch fall-throughs

[Gustavo A. R. Silva]

The aim of this patchset is firstly to refactor code in nr_route.c in order to 
make it
easier to read and maintain and, secondly, to mark some expected switch 
fall-throughs
in preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough.

I have to mention that I did not implement any unit test.
If someone has any suggestions on how I could test this piece of code
it'd be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Changes in v2:
 - Make use of the swap macro and remove inline keyword as suggested by
   Walter Harms and Kevin Dawson.

Changes in v3:
 - Update subject for both patches.
 - Add this cover letter as suggested by David Miller.

Gustavo A. R. Silva (2):
  net: netrom: nr_route: refactor code in nr_add_node
  net: netrom: nr_route: mark expected switch fall-throughs

 net/netrom/nr_route.c | 62 ---
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)

-- 
2.7.4