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 5BF0F8A2 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 17:08:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ig0-f171.google.com (mail-ig0-f171.google.com [209.85.213.171]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 376692034B for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 17:08:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ig0-f171.google.com with SMTP id l13so10868714iga.16 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 10:08:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: glikely@secretlab.ca In-Reply-To: References: <53E38ED5.9000300@samsung.com> <53E43365.50809@hitachi.com> <53E8CF03.6020308@samsung.com> <53E8EB93.8030301@hitachi.com> <20140812130043.4894DC40C5C@trevor.secretlab.ca> <53EB8E4F.9090008@roeck-us.net> From: Grant Likely Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 18:07:53 +0100 Message-ID: To: "Bird, Tim" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "shuah.kh@samsung.com" , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Rob Landley Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] kselftest - What's in 3.17 and plans for 3.18 and beyond List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Bird, Tim wrote: > On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 9:16 AM,Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> >> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> > On 08/13/2014 01:35 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Grant Likely wrote: >> >>> I'm interested in this as well. I'm working on a tool that crossbuilds a >> >>> very simple busybox rootfs and boots in QEMU for as many architectures >> >>> as possible. I want to make it easy to sanity test all the major >> >>> architectures. Right now it does little more than boot to a login >> >>> prompt, but I'd like to get the kselftests into it also. >> >> >> >> >> >> Hm that sounds like a goal similar to what Rob Landley has >> >> described as one goal for Aboriginal Linux as well. >> >> http://landley.net/aboriginal/about.html >> >> >> > >> > Yes, and to some degree buildroot. >> > >> > Rob's attempts to support multiple architectures also shows its limitations. >> > For example, his m68k images don't work, at least not for me, because the >> > machine he uses (q800) is not supported in qemu 1.6 or 2.0 or 2.1. >> > I have been unable to find a working combination of kernel configuration, >> > qemu version, qemu command line, and root file system for m68k. Presumably >> > that must exist, because qemu supports m68k, I just have not been able >> > to figure out how to make it work. >> > >> > For my own qemu runtime tests, I ended up collecting root file systems and >> > kernel configurations from all over the place. And then there is the problem >> > of qemu command line parameters, where each target and architecture requires >> > its own set of options, and it is sometimes all but impossible to find a >> > working set of parameters for a given target/architecture combination. >> > >> >> virtme has exactly this problem (except for the root image part -- >> virtme can use debootstrap output directly). In virtme, I'm trying to >> solve it by just collecting known-working QEMU arguments and >> documenting the corresponding kernel config requirements. > > I'm wondering if the kernel test tree might be a good place to keep such > virtual machine/QEMU configurations. They should be only about 1 line > (or a few lines) per machine, and they would be useful for automated testing. > I also think they won't change every kernel release, so it shouldn't lead to the churn > problem we had with defconfigs. > > Would there be objections to hosting this information in > the kernel source tree? This is exactly what I'm trying to put together. g.