Re: Current best practice for testing a new kernel API?

[christos%zoulas.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

On Dec 23,  9:04am, thorpej%me.com@localhost (Jason Thorpe) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Current best practice for testing a new kernel API?

| > Some ideas:
| > 	- kernel module to load the test
| > 	- use rump
| 
| It's almost noon where you are, Christos, but I'm not sure you've had your =
| coffee yet -- that's essentially what I said in my email.  :-)

Yes, that's true :-)

| Anyway, one drawback of the module approach is that you have to be down-sec=
| urelevel to load one.  So, any system that wants to run this test would hav=
| e to pre-load the module at boot time.

Perhaps that's ok if anita can do it.

| I might go ahead and implement the module approach first simply because I a=
| lready have the jig written, and the ATF script can just test for the prese=
| nce of the jig and skip the test if it's not present, rather than trying to=
|  load the module.
| 
| For completeness, I'll explore the rump option, but I have to figure out ho=
| w that stuff works, first.

Once you have the module done, it should not be hard to write a rump based
harness.

christos