From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Apr 11 2:43:39 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from green.dyndns.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 764A737B422; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 02:43:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from green@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (8rl4kw@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by green.dyndns.org (8.11.2/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f3B9gJa17869; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 05:42:19 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from green@FreeBSD.org) Message-Id: <200104110942.f3B9gJa17869@green.dyndns.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.3.1 01/18/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Robert Watson Cc: Peter Jeremy , freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Features to facilitate correctness and regression testing In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 11 Apr 2001 03:12:57 EDT." From: "Brian F. Feldman" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 05:42:18 -0400 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Robert Watson wrote: > On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Peter Jeremy wrote: > > > > It has been > > > suggested to me that these would make a great addition to a new > > > regression/ CVS sub-tree, that they should be included under > > > appropriate existing parts of the tree reflecting what they test, > > > and that they would be best in the form of a port. > > > > I'd prefer to see any test code in the tree near the code being tested > > - this (marginally) improves the chances of tests being updated to > > cover new functionality. A number of parts of the system already > > include stand-alone self-checks which could probably be invoked as > > part of an overall regression test. Pushing the tests into a > > separate port makes it more difficult for developers to use the > > tests and would appear to make it harder to update the tests. > > > > Any generic test skeleton files probably belong in a "regression" > > tree under /usr/src. > > Where do you think that kernel regression tests should be placed? Often, > these tests will be initiated and managed from userland, so they are > probably inappropriate to drop in sys/? You mean like, oh, say src/tools/regression? ^_^ There are odd-men-out, of course; several of the src/bin and src/usr.bin apps inherited regression tests also (e.g. ed and sed). I think those should probably be fixed by leaving the tests where they are and sticking a Makefile to run those tests in src/tools/regression. There are also the libc_r ones -- those can be very useful -- which should probably be repo-copied to the regression test tree proper. In any case, I think it's a very good idea! I'm reasonably certain we discussed regression tests in the tree 1-2 years ago, however it may not have been on the mailing lists, and only on IRC logs. If just IRC, DES or I can probably remember any prevailing ideas from back then if we try. As far as enabling the non-intrusive regression instrumentation by default, I think in -CURRENT it should be, so there should be two options which both enable regression test instrumentation and which enable intrusive instrumentation. In this particular case, I don't think there's anything to lose by enabling that syscall by default as a "non-intrusive" frob. You could always just write support for that operation into procfs(4) ;) -- Brian Fundakowski Feldman \ FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! / green@FreeBSD.org `------------------------------' To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message