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 ESMTP id 97FB79B1 for ; Thu, 8 May 2014 20:36:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ve0-f173.google.com (mail-ve0-f173.google.com [209.85.128.173]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 684021FA42 for ; Thu, 8 May 2014 20:36:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ve0-f173.google.com with SMTP id pa12so4019064veb.18 for ; Thu, 08 May 2014 13:36:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20140508094109.GA3685@quack.suse.cz> References: <53662254.9060100@huawei.com> <53699F27.9040403@hitachi.com> <1399431538.2581.30.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net> <20140507090628.GZ26890@mwanda> <20140507141503.GB12433@quack.suse.cz> <536AFC26.2080907@huawei.com> <20140508094109.GA3685@quack.suse.cz> From: Andy Lutomirski Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 13:35:45 -0700 Message-ID: To: Jan Kara Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Dan Carpenter , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] stable issues List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 2:41 AM, Jan Kara 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