From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263120AbVGOBpb (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jul 2005 21:45:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263125AbVGOBpb (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jul 2005 21:45:31 -0400 Received: from zproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.162.206]:18498 "EHLO zproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263120AbVGOBp3 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jul 2005 21:45:29 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=dyN2rAtoJx2axyS3MpT7c+bVkO4p4lKqZVz2qAHfxh0l2X3Qp2d/ly0ANndkjbyPr7Xz2mZHXUrq7HWchUmy/feYQY0gMYKMVUN2XZEfy9VGBx3+VDG5GUBxt5JaTq5lFqZzEevS5dreHYfkfwVCAgGI1BIKAd6eDJdGFiN7SnA= Message-ID: <9a8748490507141845162c0f19@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 03:45:28 +0200 From: Jesper Juhl Reply-To: Jesper Juhl To: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: Why is 2.6.12.2 less stable on my laptop than 2.6.10? Cc: Mark Gross , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Disposition: inline References: <200507140912.22532.mgross@linux.intel.com.suse.lists.linux.kernel> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 15 Jul 2005 02:38:58 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > Mark Gross writes: > > > > The problem is the process, not than the code. > > * The issues are too much ad-hock code flux without enough disciplined/formal > > regression testing and review. > > It's basically impossible to regression test swsusp except to release it. > Its success or failure depends on exactly the driver combination/platform/BIOS > version etc. e.g. all drivers have to cooperate and the particular > bugs in your BIOS need to be worked around etc. Since that is quite fragile > regressions are common. > > However in some other cases I agree some more regression testing > before release would be nice. But that's not how Linux works. Linux > does regression testing after release. > And who says that couldn't change? In my oppinion it would be nice if Linus/Andrew had some basic regression tests they could run on kernels before releasing them. There are plenty of "Linux test" projects out there that could be borrowed from to create some sort of regression test harness for them to run prior to release. It would be super nice if they had a suite of tests to run and could then drop a mail on lkml saying 2.6.x is almost ready to go, but it currently fails regression tests #x, #y & #z, we need to get those fixed first before we can release this - and then every time a bug was found that could resonably be tested for in the future it would be added to the regression test suite... That would lead to more consistent quality I believe. -- Jesper Juhl Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html