From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263146AbVGOCIc (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jul 2005 22:08:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263149AbVGOCIc (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jul 2005 22:08:32 -0400 Received: from zproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.162.194]:34711 "EHLO zproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263146AbVGOCG2 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jul 2005 22:06:28 -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=ZMfxqt2kDmsiPyzND1WEtrn9r6PseyWN3yvnRwhGZgFdgLKhiMmsTFp3B44wSYdlxqtH9nNQQZG2zGLKzI2vtFAwFvYbR5ujN967O+dcMyYBNHO8lVD5gOK1iFik5sB08keZpTZfCmvwZI1kEHan1hEBpUAoR67qMipkfibpZRY= Message-ID: <9a8748490507141906fb7e5b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 04:06:28 +0200 From: Jesper Juhl Reply-To: Jesper Juhl To: Chris Friesen Subject: Re: Why is 2.6.12.2 less stable on my laptop than 2.6.10? Cc: Andi Kleen , Mark Gross , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <42D71950.20303@nortel.com> 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> <9a8748490507141845162c0f19@mail.gmail.com> <42D71950.20303@nortel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 7/15/05, Chris Friesen wrote: > Jesper Juhl wrote: > > > In my oppinion it would be nice if Linus/Andrew had some basic > > regression tests they could run on kernels before releasing them. > > How do you regression test behaviour on broken hardware (and BIOSes) > that you don't have? > That, of course, you cannot do. But, you can regression test a lot of other things, and having a default test suite that is constantly being added to and always being run before releases (that test hardware agnostic stuff) could help cut down on the number of regressions in new releases. You can't test everything this way, nor should you, but you can test many things, and adding a bit of formal testing to the release procedure wouldn't be a bad thing IMO. -- 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