Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 13 May 2005 09:48:05 -0700 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: ipw2100: intrusive cleanups, working this time ;-) |
| |
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 01:25:58AM -0500, James Ketrenos wrote: > Greg KH wrote: > >On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 07:52:29PM -0500, James Ketrenos wrote: > >>Part of the process we have in place is to try and make sure that the > >>versions that get picked up by distros and the majority of users have a > >>'known' level of quality. As part of that, we only want to get changes > >>pushed to -mm and eventual mainline that have gone through regression > >>testing. > > > >Any chance of making those regression tests public so we can all do this > >kind of testing on any future changes that might be made to the driver? > > I believe all of our test plans are available publically. We just put > up test runner on our bugzilla server so that we can better track which > tests have been run by users, etc. Some tests are automated, some are > manual. > > The bugzilla site is http://bughost.org and test tracker is toward the > bottom of that page. > > You can also find information at http://ipw2200.sf.net/validation.php
Nice, thanks for the pointers.
> >Remember, once it hits mainline, lots of different people will be > >touching it for various reasons at times... > > > > > I am hopeful that if we can get a process streamlined enough so that > regression passes can occur quickly, we will be able to keep pace w/ any > critical fixes or changes that are desired to go into mainline. > > What is driving the approach is that our customers want to build > solutions with drivers that have gone through a known level of > interoperability and functionality testing. > > We ideally want to be able to say "you can either download the driver > version X from http://whatever, or any mainline kernel newer than > 2.6.13+". However we can only do that if the code that is pulled into > mainline /has/ gone through all of that testing.
Of course.
> The reality of the community process may require that we can only say > "version X from http://whatever or versions 2.6.{x,y,z} of the kernel" > if patches are accepted into the tree that haven't been sufficiently tested.
Good luck testing every kernel release :)
Perhaps you might want to automate this with a test against the kernel-of-the-day once the driver makes it into mainline? I know some people who are working on a kernel tinderbox that this kind of effort would tie nicely into.
> We want to have a process that meets the needs of the end users, the > ipw* and kernel development communities, the platform manufacturers, and > the distros.
That's a good goal, sounds like you are well on your way. Now if only everyone would have test suites for drivers...
thanks,
greg k-h - 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/
| |