Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Thu, 22 Mar 2001 11:18:42 -0700 | | From | Cort Dougan <> | | Subject | Re: regression testing |
| |
} On 22 Mar 2001 nbecker@fred.net wrote: } } > Hi. I was wondering if there has been any discussion of kernel } > regression testing. Wouldn't it be great if we didn't have to depend } > on human testers to verify every change didn't break something? } > } > OK, I'll admit I haven't given this a lot of thought. What I'm } > wondering is whether the user-mode linux could help here (allow a way } > to simulate controlled activity). } > - } } Regression testing __is__ what happens when 10,000 testers independently } try to break the software! No, in fact that is not a regression test.
} Canned so-called "regression-test" schemes will fail to test at least } 90 percent of the code paths, while attempting to "test" 100 percent } of the code! A canned set of regression tests would actually do what they're supposed to - prevent the kernel from regressing. If you fix a bug - write a test for that bug and keep running it. Something we follow for RTLinux that has helped us immensely. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |