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 5D40D681 for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 03:06:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.66]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF44D2019D for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 03:06:04 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <5369A311.2030001@huawei.com> Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 11:05:53 +0800 From: Li Zefan MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Masami Hiramatsu References: <53662254.9060100@huawei.com> <53699F27.9040403@hitachi.com> In-Reply-To: <53699F27.9040403@hitachi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 2014/5/7 10:49, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > (2014/05/04 20:19), Li Zefan wrote: >> - Testing stable kernels >> >> The testing of stable kernels when a new version is under review seems >> quite limited. We have Dave's Trinity and Fengguang's 0day, but they >> are run on mainline/for-next only. Would be useful to also have them >> run on stable kernels? > > This might be a kind of off-topic, but I'm interested in the testing > on the linux kernel, especially standard framework of unit-tests > for each feature. > > I see the Trinity and Fengguang's 0day test are useful. But for newer > introduced features/bugfixes, would we have a standard tests? > (for some subsystems have own selftests, but not unified.) > I kind of remember Andrew once suggested a new feature can't be accepted unless it comes with test cases? > I guess tools/testing/selftest will be an answer. If so, I think > we'd better send bugfixes with a test-case to check the bug is fixed > (and ensure no regression in future), wouldn't it? > > Thank you, >