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

[Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>]

On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 2:41 AM, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:
> On Thu 08-05-14 11:38:14, Li Zefan wrote:
>> 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?
>   I'm handling a few (3-5) per year. I'm also extending the coverage (e.g.
> recently I've added fanotify interface coverage) when doing more involved
> changes to some code so that LTP can be reasonably used for regression
> checking.

There was some talk about having some kind of 'make test' that you can
type in a kernel tree.  I'm not sure what the plan is, if any.

I've been working on a tool called virtme that might be a useful thing
to build on.

--Andy