From: Dan Kegel <dank@kegel.com>
To: Luigi Genoni <kernel@Expansa.sns.it>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <mikeg@wen-online.de>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
stp@osdlab.org
Subject: Re: Regression testing of 2.4.x before release?
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2001 17:51:49 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3BE5F0B5.52274D07@kegel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0111041955290.30596-100000@Expansa.sns.it>
Luigi Genoni wrote:
> Problem is:
> there is a lot of HW out there, and we should ALL do stress tests, to have
> a wide basis for HWs and test cases. Basically it is very hard to agree
> about a set of stress tests, because we all have different needs, and our
> tests are based on our needs. That is a streght, because they tend to be
> real life tests.
Sure, no argument there.
> In my esperience, if some default set of tests comes out, then software
> tend to be optimized for this set. And that is badly wrong.
My post was motivated by two observations:
1. Alan Cox complains occasionally that Linus' trees are not well tested,
and can't survive the torture tests that the ac tree goes through before
release. (e.g.
"2.4.8-ac12
I'm trying to make sure I can keep this testable
as 2.4.9 vanilla isnt being stable on my test sets "
2. The STP at OSDLab seems like a great resource that we might be able
to leverage to solve the problem Alan points out.
I'm not suggesting anyone do any less testing. Just the opposite;
if we set things up properly with the STP, we might be able to run
many more tests before each final release.
- Dan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-11-05 1:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <Pine.LNX.4.33.0111040832060.364-100000@mikeg.weiden.de>
2001-11-04 17:58 ` Regression testing of 2.4.x before release? Dan Kegel
2001-11-04 19:09 ` Luigi Genoni
2001-11-05 1:51 ` Dan Kegel [this message]
2001-11-05 16:39 ` Timothy D. Witham
2001-11-12 6:24 ` Dan Kegel
2001-11-12 19:07 ` Timothy D. Witham
2001-11-13 4:53 ` Dan Kegel
2001-11-13 22:00 ` STP for automated GCC testing (was Re: Regression testing of 2.4.x beforerelease?) Bryce Harrington
2002-01-10 23:50 ` Regression testing of 2.4.x before release? Daniel Phillips
2002-01-12 0:04 ` M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
2002-01-12 0:29 ` eddantes
2002-01-12 0:34 ` [OT] " Kurt Garloff
2002-01-10 23:50 ` Daniel Phillips
2001-11-04 7:03 Dan Kegel
2001-11-04 7:15 ` Ted Deppner
2001-11-04 12:04 ` Tahar
2001-11-04 17:27 ` Ted Deppner
2001-11-04 18:41 ` Luigi Genoni
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3BE5F0B5.52274D07@kegel.com \
--to=dank@kegel.com \
--cc=kernel@Expansa.sns.it \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mikeg@wen-online.de \
--cc=stp@osdlab.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.