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:2.618 / U:0.592 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site