lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jun]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: RFC - kernel selftest result documentation (KTAP)
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 02:30:45AM +0000, Bird, Tim wrote:
> Agreed. You only need machine-parsable data if you expect the CI
> system to do something more with the data than just present it.
> What that would be, that would be common for all tests (or at least
> many test), is unclear. Maybe there are patterns in the diagnostic
> data that could lead to higher-level analysis, or even automated
> fixes, that don't become apparent if the data is unstructured. But
> it's hard to know until you have lots of data. I think just getting
> the other things consistent is a good priority right now.

Yeah. I think the main place for this is performance analysis, but I
think that's a separate system entirely. TAP is really strictly yes/no,
where as performance analysis a whole other thing. The only other thing
I can think of is some kind of feature analysis, but that would be built
out of the standard yes/no output. i.e. if I create a test that checks
for specific security mitigation features (*cough*LKDTM*cough*), having
a dashboard that shows features down one axis and architectures and/or
kernel versions on other axes, then I get a pretty picture. But it's
still being built out of the yes/no info.

*shrug*

I think diagnostic should be expressly non-machine-oriented.

--
Kees Cook

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-06-17 05:37    [W:0.115 / U:0.292 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site