From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Subrata Modak Subject: Re: [Autotest] [AUTOTEST] [PATCH 1/2] Add latest LTP test in autotest Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:49:50 +0530 Message-ID: <1247048391.5405.36.camel@subratamodak.linux.ibm.com> References: <1246863519.2865.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <33307c790907061137h3da12536q47517b1662498793@mail.gmail.com> <33307c790907071045v72e19614i571c36ad8af8062c@mail.gmail.com> Reply-To: subrata@linux.vnet.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Martin Bligh , Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues , Autotest mailing list , Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues , Uri Lublin , kvm-devel , Mike Frysinger To: sudhir kumar Return-path: Received: from e2.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.142]:58232 "EHLO e2.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752854AbZGHKUF (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jul 2009 06:20:05 -0400 Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e2.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n68AEt9P019259 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2009 06:14:55 -0400 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (d01av01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.215]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.2) with ESMTP id n68AK0O0223854 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2009 06:20:00 -0400 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n68AJx0v030255 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2009 06:20:00 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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 wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:24 AM, sudhir kumar wrote: > >> 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 ? > > > > 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 ;-( > > > > >