Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/19] Add timekeeping tests to kernel selftest

From: John Stultz
Date: Mon Mar 02 2015 - 12:14:41 EST

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 02/25/2015 03:32 PM, John Stultz wrote:
>> I've hosted my timekeeping tests on github for the last few years:
>> but I suspect not too many folks have actually used them.
>> I've been meaning to get them reworked and submitted into the
>> selftest infrastructure, but haven't had much time until
>> recently. So I wanted to send this out and get any feedback
>> to see if they might be able to get into shape for the 4.1
>> merge window.
>> I've added both the non-desctructive and destructive tests
>> (which set the time, possibly to strange values, or tries
>> to trigger historical issues that could crash the machine).
>> The destructive tests are run (as root, or with proper
>> privledge) via:
>> # make run_destructive_tests
> I quickly browsed through the tests. Looks good to me. One
> comment on test run scope. Since timers now include destructive
> tests, run_tests target should only run the non-destructive by
> default and destructive tests.

Yes, agreed. That's why they are separated.

> I didn't see the run_destructive_tests in this set of changes
> in the timers/Makefile.

? See patch 10/19 for where run_destructive_tests gets introduced.

> Please see cpu-hotplug and memory-hotplug as examples that
> support default and full range tests.

Would you rather the destructive tests be included in run_full_tests?

Other then that, I've got a few compiler warning cleanup and a fix for
CROSS_COMPILE, so I'll resbumit the set tomorrow or later this week.
So let me know if there are any other changes you'd like and I'll roll
those in.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at