Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Schspa Shi <schspa@gmail.com>
Cc:     longman@redhat.com, swboyd@chromium.org, linux@roeck-us.net,
        wuchi.zero@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] debugobject: add unit test for static debug object
In-Reply-To: <m2a603onvq.fsf@gmail.com>
References: <20230303161906.831686-1-schspa@gmail.com>
 <20230303161906.831686-2-schspa@gmail.com> <m2sfdwnoi8.fsf@gmail.com>
 <87h6ub9a4w.ffs@tglx> <m2a603onvq.fsf@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 14 Apr 2023 00:39:23 +0200
Message-ID: <87edonz9t0.ffs@tglx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 23 2023 at 16:44, Schspa Shi wrote:
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> writes:
>> On Thu, Mar 23 2023 at 11:16, Schspa Shi wrote:
>>> What do you think about this test case? Should we need it ? There are
>>> some platform compatibility issues here that need a little optimization.
>>
>> What does it buy over the existing self test. Nothing AFACIT aside of
>> extra code.
>>
>
> It checks the race of the is_static_object() call in the previous
> BUG. This test can used to make sure the new fix patch works. The
> existing self test have no ability to check this.

Sure it can somehow make sure that it works.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm all for self tests, but this one really
falls into the category of testing the obvious. There are tons of more
interesting places in the kernel which lack self tests than this
particular oddity which is well understood and more than unlikely to
come back.

That said, it would be valuable if you could add your Tested-by to the
final patch, which will be queued up soonish.

Thanks,

        tglx