4 ms·

How is testing done in kernels? Is there unit testing, integration, end to end? I'm unfamiliar, but curious.

seanhunter 4y ago
Not in the Linux kernel. In the Linux kernel it has traditionally always been done by the developer sticking lots of printk statements into their code until they are happy with the outputs and then removing most of them. Make of that what you will.
- bonzini 4y ago
  LOL that is so false that is not even worth correcting.
  - marcellus23 4y ago
    Actually could you correct it? I don't know anything about the Linux kernel so I'm curious.
    - seanhunter 4y ago
      I'll correct myself. That was how it was done circa 2000-2005, but my info was way out of date because I haven't followed kernel development much for a while. Here's some stuff about how it's done now. https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/dev-tools/testing-overview.html https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/dev-tools/testing-ove... Basically there is a system called KUnit for writing white box unit tests and there is code coverage to determine coverage as you would expect, then there are systems for static analysis and verifying assertions.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- vfclists 4y ago
  This is so wrong!!
  - post-it 4y ago
    As in that's not how it's done, or that's not how it should be done?
xtreak29 4y ago
https://stackoverflow.com/q/3177338 https://stackoverflow.com/q/3177338
pikrzyszto 4y ago
See the following https://kunit.dev/ https://kunit.dev/ - unit tests for kernel https://docs.kernel.org/dev-tools/testing-overview.html https://docs.kernel.org/dev-tools/testing-overview.html - entire testing overview.
- nomel 4y ago
  There seems to be a missing piece here. The change that created this includes no tests. It appears to be completely untested.
jeffbee 4y ago
As you can see from the patch that introduced the bug, the kernel is severely under-tested and has little to no testing culture among the core contributors. The patch changes logic but no tests, indicating that the changed code has insufficient test coverage.

Not in the Linux kernel. In the Linux kernel it has traditionally always been done by the developer sticking lots of printk statements into their code until they are happy with the outputs and then removing most of them. Make of that what you will.

bonzini 4y ago
LOL that is so false that is not even worth correcting.
- marcellus23 4y ago
  Actually could you correct it? I don't know anything about the Linux kernel so I'm curious.
  - seanhunter 4y ago
    I'll correct myself. That was how it was done circa 2000-2005, but my info was way out of date because I haven't followed kernel development much for a while. Here's some stuff about how it's done now. https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/dev-tools/testing-overview.html https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/dev-tools/testing-ove... Basically there is a system called KUnit for writing white box unit tests and there is code coverage to determine coverage as you would expect, then there are systems for static analysis and verifying assertions.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
vfclists 4y ago
This is so wrong!!
- post-it 4y ago
  As in that's not how it's done, or that's not how it should be done?

xtreak29 4y ago

https://stackoverflow.com/q/3177338 https://stackoverflow.com/q/3177338

pikrzyszto 4y ago

See the following https://kunit.dev/ https://kunit.dev/ - unit tests for kernel https://docs.kernel.org/dev-tools/testing-overview.html https://docs.kernel.org/dev-tools/testing-overview.html - entire testing overview.

nomel 4y ago
There seems to be a missing piece here. The change that created this includes no tests. It appears to be completely untested.

jeffbee 4y ago

As you can see from the patch that introduced the bug, the kernel is severely under-tested and has little to no testing culture among the core contributors. The patch changes logic but no tests, indicating that the changed code has insufficient test coverage.