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

[Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>]

(2014/05/07 11:58), Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-05-07 at 11:49 +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>> (2014/05/04 20:19), Li Zefan wrote:
>>> - Testing stable kernels
>>>
>>> The testing of stable kernels when a new version is under review seems
>>> quite limited. We have Dave's Trinity and Fengguang's 0day, but they
>>> are run on mainline/for-next only. Would be useful to also have them
>>> run on stable kernels?
>>
>> This might be a kind of off-topic, but I'm interested in the testing
>> on the linux kernel, especially standard framework of unit-tests
>> for each feature.
> 
> 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.

Hm, yes, uapi tests can be done in LTP. However, I have some considerations;
- What uapi means? syscall, ioctl are OK, but what about procfs, sysfs, kernfs,
  etc?
- There could be some non-uapi features/bugfixes, in kernel. e.g. kmodule
  interface. How LTP handles it?
- I'm not sure how LTP synchronize the version of test cases with target
  kernel version. Is that possible to update the test cases as patch-level?
  And also, for stable trees, we'll need different test-sets (branches) for
  each tree.

IOW, would the test cases be better to be out-of-tree or in-tree? If it is
out-of-tree(like LTP), how can we maintain both test-cases and upstream kernels?
What infrastructure should we have (e.g. bugzilla which provides a database for
relationship between bug# and test-case) ?
Those are my interests :)

Thank you,

-- 
Masami HIRAMATSU
Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Research Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com