All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* RE: 3.0-testing
@ 2005-07-11 13:55 Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins)
  2005-07-11 14:25 ` 3.0-testing Tom Wilkie
  2005-07-11 16:24 ` Paul Larson
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins) @ 2005-07-11 13:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: xen-devel

>    1. 3.0-testing (Ian Pratt)
>  * New regression test suite. We're working on a sophisticated test
> suite that will run a wide range of benchmarks and test programs
> [lmbench, ttcp, ltp, kernbench, reaim, postmark, osdb/postgresql, ace
> tcp_test, specjbb, tbench, dbench, crashme] under a variety of
> situations [UP and SMP domains, multiple concurrent domains,
> communicating domains etc.] The final phase of the test will also
> exercise the tools, adding/removing CPUs, adding/removing memory,
> migrating domains etc. This is going to be a really good work out for
> xen and guest kernels. Stay tuned...

(Sorry about the strange reply/subject.  It appears gmane is down (which
is
my usual method for followup since I subscribe to the digest version.)

Sounds cool!  Will this be available for others to use?

It would be great if the suite is well parameterized so it is possible
to easily turn off individual tests or classes of tests.  Then it
can be used by ports that are not as far along as x86.

Dan

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* RE: RE: 3.0-testing
@ 2005-07-12 18:40 Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins)
  2005-07-13  3:29 ` Paul Larson
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins) @ 2005-07-12 18:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Paul Larson; +Cc: xen-devel

> Have you looked at Xentest?  Xentest lets you very easily add/remove
> tests with a few lines in a config file.  We should be making 
> an updated
> release soon.

Can you provide a pointer?  Google doesn't find much.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Larson [mailto:plars@linuxtestproject.org] 
> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 10:24 AM
> To: Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins)
> Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] RE: 3.0-testing
> 
> On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 06:55 -0700, Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort
> Collins) wrote:
> > >    1. 3.0-testing (Ian Pratt)
> > >  * New regression test suite. We're working on a 
> sophisticated test
> > > suite that will run a wide range of benchmarks and test programs
> > > [lmbench, ttcp, ltp, kernbench, reaim, postmark, 
> osdb/postgresql, ace
> > > tcp_test, specjbb, tbench, dbench, crashme] under a variety of
> > > situations [UP and SMP domains, multiple concurrent domains,
> > > communicating domains etc.] The final phase of the test will also
> > > exercise the tools, adding/removing CPUs, adding/removing memory,
> > > migrating domains etc. This is going to be a really good 
> work out for
> > > xen and guest kernels. Stay tuned...
> > 
> > (Sorry about the strange reply/subject.  It appears gmane 
> is down (which
> > is
> > my usual method for followup since I subscribe to the 
> digest version.)
> > 
> > Sounds cool!  Will this be available for others to use?
> > 
> > It would be great if the suite is well parameterized so it 
> is possible
> > to easily turn off individual tests or classes of tests.  Then it
> > can be used by ports that are not as far along as x86.
> Have you looked at Xentest?  Xentest lets you very easily add/remove
> tests with a few lines in a config file.  We should be making 
> an updated
> release soon.
> 
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Paul Larson
> plars@linuxtestproject.org
> http://www.linuxtestproject.org
> 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* RE: Re: 3.0-testing
@ 2005-07-07 19:16 Ian Pratt
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ian Pratt @ 2005-07-07 19:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Dan Magenheimer, xen-devel

> Since the semantics of the tree is a bit different from 
> 2.0-testing might it make sense to use a different name, e.g. pre-3.0?

Not so different. Changing tree names is actually a pain in the butt, so
I think 3.0-testing is actually OK. We will then fork 3.0 from it when
we're ready for a release (and tag it 3.0.0), and 3.0-testing will be
strictly bug fixes only. 

We're not intending to do any checkins to -unstable until 3.0 is
released. In fact, we might start off soft linking the -unstable repo to
-3.0-testing.
 
> Also, will the 3.0-testing tree be appropriate to roll in 
> common-izing changes (i.e. abstracting out x86-isms) in 
> drivers and xc?  These should be low risk to x86_* as they 
> will simply be syntactic, e.g. moving inline code into macros 
> or separate functions.  If so, I'd like to arrange some time 
> to work on this at OLS?

I'd have rather hoped stuff like this would have already been discussed
and posted :-(

Anyhow, we can try and find time to discuss this at OLS with both you
and Jimi, Hollis et al. 


Ian

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2005-07-13  3:29 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2005-07-11 13:55 3.0-testing Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins)
2005-07-11 14:25 ` 3.0-testing Tom Wilkie
2005-07-11 16:24 ` Paul Larson
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-07-12 18:40 Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins)
2005-07-13  3:29 ` Paul Larson
2005-07-07 19:16 3.0-testing Ian Pratt

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.