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 C6A4F92F for ; Thu, 8 May 2014 03:20:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail9.hitachi.co.jp (mail9.hitachi.co.jp [133.145.228.44]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9207E1FD49 for ; Thu, 8 May 2014 03:20:27 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <536AF7F4.6010608@hitachi.com> Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 12:20:20 +0900 From: Masami Hiramatsu MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Vetter References: <53662254.9060100@huawei.com> <53699F27.9040403@hitachi.com> <1399431538.2581.30.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net> <5369EE59.9040805@hitachi.com> <20140507083936.GY26088@console-pimps.org> <536A1CC3.5090506@hitachi.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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: , (2014/05/07 21:45), Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Masami Hiramatsu > wrote: >> (2014/05/07 17:39), Matt Fleming wrote: >>> On Wed, 07 May, at 05:27:05PM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: >>>> >>>> IOW, would the test cases be better to be out-of-tree or in-tree? If it is >>>> out-of-tree(like LTP), how can we maintain both test-cases and upstream kernels? >>>> What infrastructure should we have (e.g. bugzilla which provides a database for >>>> relationship between bug# and test-case) ? >>>> Those are my interests :) >>> >>> There's definitely huge merit in having in-tree tests like the current >>> selftests stuff because it allows you to roll up fixes and regression >>> tests into a single commit, see commit 123abd76edf5 ("efivars: >>> efivarfs_valid_name() should handle pstore syntax"). >>> >> >> Ah, that's a good example for adding new feature/bugfix with test case! :) >> I think this type of combined patch will be good to run tests with git-bisect. >> At least out-of-tree test should work with git-bisect. > > At least for drm/i915 I don't think merging the tests into the kernel > would be beneficial, at least now: Hm, it seems some other subsystems have their own testsuites, I think we'd better clarify the testing policy for each subsystem, using dedicated testing tools or in-kernel selftest. > - Our tests are integrated into the regression test framework used by > graphics people in general (piglit), and that most certainly won't > move into the kernel. > - We have lots of debug tools in the same repo (with shared code), and > it tends to be less scary for bug reporters to grab > intel-gpu-tools.git to run one of them instead of the entire kernel. > - Documentation tooling in userspace sucks a lot less than kerneldoc. > Which is important since we use testcases and tooling as getting > started tasks for newcomers. > - Also I want much stricter review requirements on kernel patches than > testcase patches, separate git trees helps with that. > > Hence why we thus far just link the kernel patch to its testcase with > an Testcase: tag. Ah, that's also nice to find an appropriate testcases. I think adding a link(or git hash) to testcase allows us to automate test configuration when git-bisecting, even if the test is out-of-tree. :) Thank you, -- Masami HIRAMATSU Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Research Center Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com