From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sudhir kumar Subject: Re: [Autotest] [AUTOTEST] [PATCH 1/2] Add latest LTP test in autotest Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 12:54:48 +0530 Message-ID: References: <1246863519.2865.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <33307c790907061137h3da12536q47517b1662498793@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues , Autotest mailing list , Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues , Uri Lublin , kvm-devel To: Martin Bligh Return-path: Received: from mail-pz0-f193.google.com ([209.85.222.193]:41105 "EHLO mail-pz0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751840AbZGGHYp (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jul 2009 03:24:45 -0400 Received: by pzk31 with SMTP id 31so2800203pzk.33 for ; Tue, 07 Jul 2009 00:24:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <33307c790907061137h3da12536q47517b1662498793@mail.gmail.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Martin Bligh wrote: >>> Issues: LTP has a history of some of the testcases getting broken. > > Right, that's always the concern with doing this. > >>> Anyways >>> that has nothing to worry about with respect to autotest. One of the known issue >>> is broken memory controller issue with latest kernels(cgroups and memory >>> resource controller enabled kernels). The workaround for them I use is to >>> disable or delete those tests from ltp source and tar it again with the same >>> name. Though people might use different workarounds for it. > > OK, Can we encapsulate this into the wrapper though, rather than making > people do it manually? in the existing ltp.patch or something? > definitely we can do that, but that needs to know about all the corner cases of failure. So may be we can continue enhancing the patch as per the failure reports on different OSes. 1 more thing I wanted to start a discussion on LTP mailing list is to make aware the testcase if it is running on a physical host or on a guest(say KVM guest). Testcases like power management, group scheduling fairness etc do not make much sense to run on a guest(as they will fail or break). So It is better for the test to recognise the environment and not execute if it is under virtualization and it is supposed to fail or break under that environment. Does that make sense to you also ? -- Sudhir Kumar