lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Dec]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4.14 00/95] 4.14.4-stable review
On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 03:45:07PM -0600, Tom Gall wrote:
>
>
> > On Dec 5, 2017, at 12:24 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 03:12:45PM -0600, Tom Gall wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Dec 4, 2017, at 9:59 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.14.4 release.
> >>> There are 95 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> >>> to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> >>> let me know.
> >>>
> >>> Responses should be made by Wed Dec 6 16:00:27 UTC 2017.
> >>> Anything received after that time might be too late.
> >>>
> >>> The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
> >>> kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/stable-review/patch-4.14.4-rc1.gz
> >>> or in the git tree and branch at:
> >>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-4.14.y
> >>> and the diffstat can be found below.
> >>>
> >>> thanks,
> >>>
> >>> greg k-h
> >>>
> >>
> >> Compiled, booted and ran the following package unit tests without regressions on x86_64
> >>
> >> boringssl :
> >> go test target:0/0/5764/5764/5764 PASS
> >> ssl_test : 10 pass
> >> crypto_test : 28 pass
> >> e2fsprogs:
> >> make check : 340 pass
> >> sqlite
> >> make test : 143914 pass
> >> drm
> >> make check : 15 pass
> >> modetest, drmdevice : pass
> >> alsa-lib
> >> make check : 2 pass
> >> bluez
> >> make check : 25 pass
> >> libusb
> >> stress : 4 pass
> >
> > How do the above tests stress the kernel?
>
> Depends entirely on the package in question.
>
> Sure, of completely no surprise a lot of package unit tests don’t really
> do much that’s particularly interesting save to the package itself.

Then why run those tests? Like sqlite, what kernel functionality does
that exercise that ltp does not?

> There are sometimes an interesting subset that drives some amount of work in kernel.
> That’s the useful stuff.

Is that true with the above list? If so, why are those types of tests
not part of any kernel test suite that I have seen before?

> Take bluez, and it’s use of CONFIG_CRYPTO_USER_API.

Nice, does that cover things that is not in LTP? Should those tests be
added to LTP?

> > Aren't they just
> > verifications that the source code in the package is correct?
>
> So if there’s some useful subset, that’s what I’m looking for.
>
> > I guess it proves something, but have you ever seen the above regress in
> > _any_ kernel release?
>
> Past regressions make for a good test.

You are testing past regressions of the userspace code, not the kernel
here. Why do I care about that? :)

Don't fall down the trap of running code for the sake of running code
(i.e. like that web site that starts with a P) that doesn't actually
test anything that actually matters.

thanks,

greg k-h

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-12-06 07:50    [W:0.118 / U:0.920 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site