From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dor Laor Subject: Re: [Autotest] [AUTOTEST] [PATCH 1/2] Add latest LTP test in autotest Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:25:32 +0300 Message-ID: <4A54660C.6090509@redhat.com> References: <1246863519.2865.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <33307c790907061137h3da12536q47517b1662498793@mail.gmail.com> <6ac58f4f0907070831h381a405bqdd58fdfaf132333e@mail.gmail.com> <33307c790907072140i2a09f28dx3b7d6b217e31eeef@mail.gmail.com> Reply-To: dlaor@redhat.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: sudhir kumar , Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues , Autotest mailing list , Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues , Uri Lublin , kvm-devel To: Martin Bligh Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:52229 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756748AbZGHJZT (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jul 2009 05:25:19 -0400 In-Reply-To: <33307c790907072140i2a09f28dx3b7d6b217e31eeef@mail.gmail.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 07/08/2009 07:40 AM, Martin Bligh wrote: >> ATM I will suggest to merge the patches in and let get tested so that >> we can collect failures/breakages if any. > > I am not keen on causing regressions, which we've risked doing every > time we change LTP. I think we at least need to get a run on a non-virtualized > machine with some recent kernel, and exclude the tests that fail every time. We can use the reported results (impressive) as a base. When more regressions are introduced, we can chop more tests