From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martin Bligh Subject: Re: [Autotest] [AUTOTEST] [PATCH 1/2] Add latest LTP test in autotest Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 10:45:48 -0700 Message-ID: <33307c790907071045v72e19614i571c36ad8af8062c@mail.gmail.com> 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: sudhir kumar Return-path: Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.13]:44731 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754253AbZGGRpw (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jul 2009 13:45:52 -0400 Received: from zps76.corp.google.com (zps76.corp.google.com [172.25.146.76]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id n67HjoRm003907 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 10:45:50 -0700 Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (wfg23.prod.google.com [10.142.7.23]) by zps76.corp.google.com with ESMTP id n67HjKHk015723 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 10:45:48 -0700 Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 23so1712688wfg.2 for ; Tue, 07 Jul 2009 10:45:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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 ;-(