Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 14:58:36 +0000 From: "jhb (John Baldwin)" <phabric-noreply@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: [Differential] [Changed Subscribers] D1711: Changes to the callout code to restore active semantics and also add a test-framework and test to validate thecallout code (and potentially for use by other tests). Message-ID: <7a833ed117edb84f9e178b55201dff2b@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <differential-rev-PHID-DREV-vhk6ww63dvpj6egspuyt-req@FreeBSD.org> References: <differential-rev-PHID-DREV-vhk6ww63dvpj6egspuyt-req@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
jhb added a subscriber: jhb. jhb added a comment. Hmm, I do think the idea of a kernel test framework should be discussed in its own right. I have implemented a much simpler one on my own for unit tests of locking primitives that you can see here. These worked by declaring tests in linker sets in a kernel module. Loading the module implicitly runs the tests. I have other changes in this branch to allow "catching" panics like exceptions and similar changes for witness as well. The test framework (much simpler) can be found at: http://p4db.freebsd.org/fileDownLoad.cgi?FSPC=//depot/user/jhb/lock/kern/subr_test.c&REV=6 http://p4db.freebsd.org/fileDownLoad.cgi?FSPC=//depot/user/jhb/lock/sys/unittest.h&REV=2 Sample test modules can be found here: http://p4db.freebsd.org/depotTreeBrowser.cgi?FSPC=//depot/user/jhb/lock/modules/test&HIDEDEL=NO I think "test" is probably a better name for a subdir of test modules as it is more consistent with what we are doing in userland with kyua. REVISION DETAIL https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1711 To: rrs, gnn, rwatson, adrian, sbruno, lstewart, imp, hselasky Cc: jhb, kostikbel, emaste, delphij, neel, erj, freebsd-net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7a833ed117edb84f9e178b55201dff2b>