Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] stable issues

[Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>]

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?

That said, recently I tried to run cgroup test suits in LTP, one of which
was written by myself many years ago, and then I figured out there was a
kernel bug in cgroup. :)