From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F06AC681 for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 05:42:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F94720224 for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 05:42:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.42]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EF37216F1 for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 01:41:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 07:41:56 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Masami Hiramatsu Message-ID: <20140509054156.GA28053@kroah.com> References: <53662254.9060100@huawei.com> <53699F27.9040403@hitachi.com> <1399431538.2581.30.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net> <20140507090628.GZ26890@mwanda> <20140507141503.GB12433@quack.suse.cz> <536AFC26.2080907@huawei.com> <20140508094109.GA3685@quack.suse.cz> <20140509041140.GB22191@kroah.com> <536C68C3.5030500@hitachi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <536C68C3.5030500@hitachi.com> Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] stable issues List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 02:33:55PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > (2014/05/09 13:11), Greg KH wrote: > > On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 01:35:45PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > >> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 2:41 AM, Jan Kara wrote: > >>> On Thu 08-05-14 11:38:14, Li Zefan wrote: > >>>> On 2014/5/7 22:15, Jan Kara wrote: > >>>>> On Wed 07-05-14 12:06:28, Dan Carpenter wrote: > >>>>>> On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 07:58:58PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > >>>>>>> I tend to think of LTP as a nice way of doing unit-tests for the uapi. > >>>>>>> Fengguang's scripts do include it, iirc, but I'm referring more to unit > >>>>>>> level tests. It serves well for changes in ipc, and should also for > >>>>>>> other subsystems. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> LTP is too complicated and enterprisey. With trinity you don't can just > >>>>>> type: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ./configure.sh && make && ./trinity > >>>>>> > >>>>>> With LTP you have to read the install documents. You can't run it > >>>>>> from your home directory so you have to build a virtual machine which > >>>>>> you don't care about before you install it. > >>>>> Actually, I'm occasionally using LTP and it doesn't seem too bad to me. > >>>>> And it seems LTP is improving over time so I'm mostly happy about it. > >>>> > >>>> But how useful LTP is in finding kernel bugs? It seems to me we seldom > >>>> see bug reports which say the bug was found by LTP? > >>> I'm handling a few (3-5) per year. I'm also extending the coverage (e.g. > >>> recently I've added fanotify interface coverage) when doing more involved > >>> changes to some code so that LTP can be reasonably used for regression > >>> checking. > >> > >> There was some talk about having some kind of 'make test' that you can > >> type in a kernel tree. I'm not sure what the plan is, if any. > > > > The plan is to fix it, we already have it in the tree today, but it is > > broken. > > So will the "make test" run tools/testing/selftest? or other tests? To start with, it runs the tests we have in the kernel today. Expanding that to fix those tests is a good start, and we can go from there. thanks, greg k-h