Re: Linux Testing Microconference at LPC

[Knut Omang <knut.omang@oracle.com>]

On Wed, 2019-05-22 at 14:02 -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 08:36:49PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 04:44:19PM -0600, shuah wrote:
> > > Hi Sasha and Dhaval,
> > > 
> > > On 4/11/19 11:37 AM, Dhaval Giani wrote:
> > > > Hi Folks,
> > > > 
> > > > This is a call for participation for the Linux Testing microconference
> > > > at LPC this year.
> > > > 
> > > > For those who were at LPC last year, as the closing panel mentioned,
> > > > testing is probably the next big push needed to improve quality. From
> > > > getting more selftests in, to regression testing to ensure we don't
> > > > break realtime as more of PREEMPT_RT comes in, to more stable distros,
> > > > we need more testing around the kernel.
> > > > 
> > > > We have talked about different efforts around testing, such as fuzzing
> > > > (using syzkaller and trinity), automating fuzzing with syzbot, 0day
> > > > testing, test frameworks such as ktests, smatch to find bugs in the
> > > > past. We want to push this discussion further this year and are
> > > > interested in hearing from you what you want to talk about, and where
> > > > kernel testing needs to go next.
> > > > 
> > > > Please let us know what topics you believe should be a part of the
> > > > micro conference this year.
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks!
> > > > Sasha and Dhaval
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > A talk on KUnit from Brendan Higgins will be good addition to this
> > > Micro-conference. I am cc'ing Brendan on this thread.
> > > 
> > > Please consider adding it.
> > 
> > FWIW, the topic of unit tests is already on the schedule. There seems to
> > be two different sub-topics here (kunit vs KTF) so there's a good
> > discussion to be had here on many levels.
> 
> Cool, so do we just want to go with that? Have a single slot for KUnit
> and KTF combined?
> 
> We can each present our work up to this point; maybe offer some
> background and rationale on why we made the decision we have and then we
> can have some moderated discussion on, pros, cons, next steps, etc?

I definitely had KTF and KUnit in mind when proposing this topic.
If you recall from the last time we discussed unit testing, each slot is 
fairly limited in time. My plan for the intro for discussion is to 
itemize some of the distinct goals we try to achieve with our frameworks and have a
discussion based on that. In light of the discussion around your patch sets,
one topic is also the question of whether a common API would be useful/desired, 
and whether we can "capture" a short namespace for that.

Thanks,
Knut

> Cheers