Re: [PATCH 00/11] 3.0-stable: Fix for leapsecond deadlock & hrtimer/futex issue

[John Stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>]

On 07/17/2012 11:15 AM, John Stultz wrote:
> On 07/17/2012 10:57 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>> Hi John,
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 01:33:47PM -0400, John Stultz wrote:
>>> I've already done backports to all the stable kernels to 2.6.32, and
>>> will send out the rest soon.
>> That's very much appreciated, thank you! Do not hesitate to send me
>> your reproducers, I'll happily run some tests.
>
> Attached are two tests. One is general exerciser of the leapsecond 
> code (leap-a-day) which also notes if it sees the hrtimer/futuex early 
> expiration issue, and the other is a much faster (almost immediate) 
> reproducer for the leapsecond deadlock (leapcrash).
>
> The leapcrash test will likely wedge unpatched systems in hardirq 
> context, and has caused lost (dirty) data in my testing, so BEWARE!
> RUN AT YOUR OWN RISK!
>
> And of course, the leap-a-day has the same potential, but doesn't 
> tickle the deadlock issue as aggressively.

As a tangent, I'm looking to try to get these tests integrated with a 
testing suite that developers, distros and other testing organizations 
run regularly.  I'm aware of LTP, however last I looked at it, it seems 
to have become a bit messy, being somewhat of a catch all, and in casual 
asking around not too many folks I know regularly use it (Is that no 
longer the case?).

Are there any other test suites that folks would recommend I look into 
for merging these (and other time related) tests?

thanks
-john