Kernel quality control, or the lack thereof
Kernel quality control, or the lack thereof
Posted Dec 11, 2018 14:11 UTC (Tue) by PaulMcKenney (✭ supporter ✭, #9624)In reply to: Kernel quality control, or the lack thereof by marcH
Parent article: Kernel quality control, or the lack thereof
If only (say) 30% of your code is tested, you very likely need to substantially increase your coverage. If (say) 90% of your code is tested, there is a good chance that there is some better use of your time than getting to 91%. But for any rule of thumb like these, there will be a great many exceptions, for example, the safety-critical code mentioned earlier.
Hey, you asked! :-)
Posted Dec 11, 2018 20:53 UTC (Tue)
by marcH (subscriber, #57642)
[Link]
Sincere thanks!
Posted Jan 5, 2019 18:06 UTC (Sat)
by joseph.h.garvin (guest, #64486)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jan 5, 2019 22:29 UTC (Sat)
by PaulMcKenney (✭ supporter ✭, #9624)
[Link]
Nevertheless, your last sentence is spot on. It is precisely because rcutorture forces rare code paths and rare race conditions to execute more frequently that the number of RCU bugs reaching customers is kept down to a dull roar.
Kernel quality control, or the lack thereof
Kernel quality control, or the lack thereof
Kernel quality control, or the lack thereof