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 ESMTPS id 4BC9F904 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 08:45:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.nue.novell.com (smtp.nue.novell.com [195.135.221.5]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A59038E for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 08:45:02 +0000 (UTC) To: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <91774112.AKkGksYjl6@vostro.rjw.lan> <20160709004352.GK28589@dtor-ws> <1468058721.2557.9.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <0ED98206-0A66-48A4-B5A4-A0BC53FDBF05@primarydata.com> <1468114447.2333.12.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1468115770.2333.15.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <718BE1FD-6169-4205-A905-53F997D5943A@primarydata.com> <7hk2gr7wjq.fsf@baylibre.com> <20160711230351.GA3627@roeck-us.net> <578C88DA.7020708@de.ibm.com> From: Hannes Reinecke Message-ID: <24ff8ba9-a094-d480-da27-c22d15a3755b@suse.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 10:44:59 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <578C88DA.7020708@de.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] kernel unit testing List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 07/18/2016 09:44 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > On 07/12/2016 01:03 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 01:24:25PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote: >>> Trond Myklebust writes: >>> >>>> So, we might as well make this a formal proposal. >>>> >>>> I’d like to propose that we have a discussion around how to make it >>>> easier to implement kernel unit tests. I’ve co-opted Dan as he has >>>> expressed both an interest and hands-on experience. :-) >>> >>> Count me in. >>> >>> I'm working on the kernelci.org project, where we're testing >>> mainline/next/stable-rc/stable etc. on real hardware (~200 unique boards >>> across ~30 unique SoC families: arm, arm64, x86.) >>> >>> Right now, we're mainly doing basic boot tests, but are starting to run >>> kselftests on all these platforms as well. >>> >> >> Augmenting that: For my part the interest would be to improve qemu based >> testing along the same line (and maybe figure out if/how we can merge >> kerneltests.org into kernelci.org). > > I am also interested in this topic. I would like to find a way to integrate > architectures (with non-perfect qemu coverage) like s390 in that regression > testing. There are several installations which could be used to run some nightly > regression but the hardware is not that wide-spread among kernel hackers. > I would like to discuss the different options (e.g. do we consider email reports > as working or no?) > I'd be interested in that, too. While we're already doing quite some testing (eg performance) we're looking into doing setup or architecture-specific tests. With no clear result yet, so a broader discussion would be good. Cheers, Hannes -- Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage hare@suse.com +49 911 74053 688 SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg GF: F. Imendörffer, J. Smithard, D. Upmanyu, G. Norton HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)