Re: [Autotest] [AUTOTEST] [PATCH 1/2] Add latest LTP test in autotest

[Subrata Modak <subrata@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 09:47 +0530, sudhir kumar wrote: 
> Ok Then. So my idea is to include the patch in autotest and let the
> people report failures(in compilation or execution), and we can patch
> autotest to apply the fix patch and build and run ltp. I do not think
> we can find all cases untill and unless we start execution.
> 
> However I will start the discussion on the ltp list and see the
> response from people. At least we can get the new testcases to be
> aware of virtualization.

Great. Such a thing would be a welcome discussion, provided you also
propose us the way to do it, and how it would not affect the existing
result analysis.

Regards--
Subrata

> 
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Martin Bligh<mbligh@google.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:24 AM, sudhir kumar<smalikphy@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Martin Bligh<mbligh@google.com> 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 ?
> >
> > Yup, we can pass an excluded test list. I really wish they'd fix their
> > tests, but I've been saying that for 6 years now, and it hasn't happened
> > yet ;-(
> >
> 
> 
>