From: Paul Larson <plars@linuxtestproject.org>
To: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
ltp-results <ltp-results@lists.sourceforge.net>,
linstab <linstab@osdl.org>
Subject: LTP nightly regression results for 2.6.0-test4,bk1,bk2,bk3,bk5,bk6,mm1,mm2,mm3-1,mm4,mm5,mm6
Date: 05 Sep 2003 13:58:12 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1062788292.1290.242.camel@plars> (raw)
Lots of test results here, the swapoff test failures are related to a
known bug in mkswap under debian unstable so nothing to worry about
there. If its too alarming to people to see it there, then I can take
it out of the nightly run on this box.
These results and previous results are archived at:
http://developer.osdl.org/dev/ltp/results/
Thanks,
Paul Larson
2.6.0-test4-vs-2.6.0-test4-bk1
http://developer.osdl.org/dev/ltp/results/2.6.0-test4/2.6.0-test4-vs-2.6.0-test4-bk1/
Test Name 2.6.0-test4 2.6.0-test4-bk1 Regression Improvement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
getgroups03 FAIL FAIL N N
gettimeofday PASS FAIL Y N
nanosleep02 FAIL FAIL N N
swapoff01 FAIL FAIL N N
swapoff02 FAIL FAIL N N
syslog04 FAIL FAIL N N
2.6.0-test4-bk1-vs-2.6.0-test4-bk2
http://developer.osdl.org/dev/ltp/results/2.6.0-test4/2.6.0-test4-bk1-vs-2.6.0-test4-bk2/
Test Name 2.6.0-test4-bk1 2.6.0-test4-bk2 Regression Improvement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
getgroups03 FAIL FAIL N N
gettimeofday FAIL PASS N Y
nanosleep02 FAIL FAIL N N
swapoff01 FAIL FAIL N N
swapoff02 FAIL FAIL N N
syslog04 FAIL FAIL N N
2.6.0-test4-bk2-vs-2.6.0-test4-bk3
http://developer.osdl.org/dev/ltp/results/2.6.0-test4/2.6.0-test4-bk2-vs-2.6.0-test4-bk3/
Test Name 2.6.0-test4-bk2 2.6.0-test4-bk3 Regression Improvement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
getgroups03 FAIL FAIL N N
nanosleep02 FAIL FAIL N N
swapoff01 FAIL FAIL N N
swapoff02 FAIL FAIL N N
syslog04 FAIL PASS N Y
*The -bk4 kernel is skipped here because there was some kind of hang
problem with it. I didn't get a chance to look into it before -bk5 came
out and the problem was fixed there anyway.
2.6.0-test4-bk3-vs-2.6.0-test4-bk5
http://developer.osdl.org/dev/ltp/results/2.6.0-test4/2.6.0-test4-bk3-vs-2.6.0-test4-bk5/
Test Name 2.6.0-test4-bk3 2.6.0-test4-bk5 Regression Improvement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
getgroups03 FAIL FAIL N N
nanosleep02 FAIL FAIL N N
swapoff01 FAIL FAIL N N
swapoff02 FAIL FAIL N N
2.6.0-test4-bk5-vs-2.6.0-test4-bk6
http://developer.osdl.org/dev/ltp/results/2.6.0-test4/2.6.0-test4-bk5-vs-2.6.0-test4-bk6/
Test Name 2.6.0-test4-bk5 2.6.0-test4-bk6 Regression Improvement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
getgroups03 FAIL FAIL N N
nanosleep02 FAIL FAIL N N
swapoff01 FAIL FAIL N N
swapoff02 FAIL FAIL N N
2.6.0-test4-vs-2.6.0-test4-mm1
http://developer.osdl.org/dev/ltp/results/2.6.0-test4/2.6.0-test4-vs-2.6.0-test4-mm1/
Test Name 2.6.0-test4 2.6.0-test4-mm1 Regression Improvement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
getgroups03 FAIL FAIL N N
nanosleep02 FAIL FAIL N N
swapoff01 FAIL FAIL N N
swapoff02 FAIL FAIL N N
syslog04 FAIL FAIL N N
2.6.0-test4-mm1-vs-2.6.0-test4-mm2
http://developer.osdl.org/dev/ltp/results/2.6.0-test4/2.6.0-test4-mm1-vs-2.6.0-test4-mm2/
Test Name 2.6.0-test4-mm1 2.6.0-test4-mm2 Regression Improvement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
fcntl15 PASS FAIL Y N
getgroups03 FAIL FAIL N N
nanosleep02 FAIL FAIL N N
swapoff01 FAIL FAIL N N
swapoff02 FAIL FAIL N N
syslog04 FAIL PASS N Y
2.6.0-test4-mm2-vs-2.6.0-test4-mm3-1
http://developer.osdl.org/dev/ltp/results/2.6.0-test4/2.6.0-test4-mm2-vs-2.6.0-test4-mm3-1/
Test Name 2.6.0-test4-mm2 2.6.0-test4-mm3-1 Regression Improvement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
fcntl15 FAIL PASS N Y
getgroups03 FAIL FAIL N N
nanosleep02 FAIL FAIL N N
swapoff01 FAIL FAIL N N
swapoff02 FAIL FAIL N N
2.6.0-test4-mm3-1-vs-2.6.0-test4-mm4
http://developer.osdl.org/dev/ltp/results/2.6.0-test4/2.6.0-test4-mm3-1-vs-2.6.0-test4-mm4/
Test Name 2.6.0-test4-mm3-1 2.6.0-test4-mm4 Regression Improvement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
getgroups03 FAIL FAIL N N
nanosleep02 FAIL FAIL N N
swapoff01 FAIL FAIL N N
swapoff02 FAIL FAIL N N
syslog04 PASS FAIL Y N
2.6.0-test4-mm4-vs-2.6.0-test4-mm5
http://developer.osdl.org/dev/ltp/results/2.6.0-test4/2.6.0-test4-mm4-vs-2.6.0-test4-mm5/
Test Name 2.6.0-test4-mm4 2.6.0-test4-mm5 Regression Improvement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
fcntl15 PASS FAIL Y N
getgroups03 FAIL FAIL N N
nanosleep02 FAIL FAIL N N
swapoff01 FAIL FAIL N N
swapoff02 FAIL FAIL N N
syslog04 FAIL PASS N Y
*Seems to be some bouncing around on the -mms of fcntl15 failing. I
need to do some more investigation here to see if the test is failing
randomly on its own, or just with -mm.
2.6.0-test4-mm5-vs-2.6.0-test4-mm6
http://developer.osdl.org/dev/ltp/results/2.6.0-test4/2.6.0-test4-mm5-vs-2.6.0-test4-mm6/
Test Name 2.6.0-test4-mm5 2.6.0-test4-mm6 Regression Improvement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
fcntl15 FAIL PASS N Y
getgroups03 FAIL FAIL N N
hangup01 PASS FAIL Y N
nanosleep02 FAIL FAIL N N
ptem01 PASS FAIL Y N
pty01 PASS FAIL Y N
swapoff01 FAIL FAIL N N
swapoff02 FAIL FAIL N N
*The hangup01, ptem01, and pty01 regressions here are all related to an
error on opening /dev/ptmx. A bug has been filed for this, #1187.
reply other threads:[~2003-09-05 18:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1062788292.1290.242.camel@plars \
--to=plars@linuxtestproject.org \
--cc=linstab@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ltp-results@lists.sourceforge.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox