Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] kernel testing standard

[Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>]

(2014/06/05 17:53), Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven
> <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> wrote:
>>> There is a hazard that someone bisecting the tree would need to be careful
>>> to not bisect LTP instead.
>>
>> 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.
> 
> Same for validating backports - you want the latest testsuite to make
> sure you don't miss important fixes. Downside is that the testsuite
> needs to be compatible over a much wider range of kernels to be
> useful, which is a pain for e.g. checking that garbage in reserved
> fields (like reserved flags) are properly rejected on each kernel
> version.

Perhaps, the testsuite can recognize which patch is merged or not
if it can access the git repository by "git log | grep <commit-id>"
or something like that. Then, it can self-configure to reject
non-supported test. :)

Thank you,

-- 
Masami HIRAMATSU
Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Research Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com