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 C4ACA2C for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 07:44:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A26D2150 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 07:44:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098409.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.11/8.16.0.11) with SMTP id u6I7hqYv005008 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 03:44:33 -0400 Received: from e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.101]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 248nbhqu0k-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 03:44:32 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 08:44:30 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay10.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.195]) by d06dlp03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 585D01B0805F for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 08:45:50 +0100 (BST) Received: from d06av05.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av05.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.229]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id u6I7iR0614156276 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 07:44:27 GMT Received: from d06av05.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d06av05.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id u6I7iQDJ004046 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 01:44:26 -0600 To: Guenter Roeck , Kevin Hilman 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> From: Christian Borntraeger Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 09:44:26 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160711230351.GA3627@roeck-us.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: <578C88DA.7020708@de.ibm.com> Cc: James Bottomley , Trond Myklebust , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] kernel unit testing List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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?) Christian