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 619858A4 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 08:44:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx2.suse.de (cantor2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5B561F952 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 08:44:52 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 10:44:38 +0200 From: chrubis@suse.cz To: Geert Uytterhoeven Message-ID: <20140605084437.GB11139@rei.Home> References: <537F3551.2070104@hitachi.com> <20140528153702.GU23991@suse.de> <20140528185748.GA30673@kroah.com> <20140605002331.GB24037@kroah.com> <20140605065455.GM10819@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Cc: "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] kernel testing standard List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi! > That may actually be a good reason not to import LTP... > I'd imagine you usually want to bisect the kernel to find when a regression > was introduced in the syscall API. > > Is there a reason not to run the latest version of LTP (unless bisecting > LTP ;-)? The syscall API is supposed to be stable. They mostly are (there are some errno changes from time to time, etc.). But with each release LTP gets more test coverage and considerable amount of bugfixes. As we are still in a phase where we are cleaing and reviewing legacy code, the amount of bugfixes is quite high. I guess that the amount of bugfixes will drop in a fortcoming years but for now running latest LTP is very important. -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz