lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1997]   [Apr]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Kernel testing
    On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Oliver Xymoron wrote:

    > > FWIW, this is a great idea, and I'll help (not volunteer to
    > > coordinate, but help) write this thing if there is an interest ... The
    > > one caveat I see is that we should create a test suite that will run in
    > > approx. 6 hours. I would be (and I think so would others) willing to run
    > > this thing on my office machine, if I can set it going when I leave in the
    > > evening and have my machine back when I come in the next morning ...
    >
    > I think the time is very flexible - I was thinking the bulk of the time
    > would be spent on stress testing like crashme rather than functionality
    > testing. Even a very complete set of functionality tests would be well
    > less than 6 hours, I'd think, because any single "does this syscall
    > return the right value?" test is going to be nearly instantaneous.

    Hmm, I agree, a simple make test would do wonders for linux,
    something which goes through all the syscalls and stuff like that, making
    sure everything returns sane values.
    However, the real test of the kernel does come when linux is
    running under a NORMAL_LOAD * 25 type of situation. That is something
    that needs to take time. The question on the table is then, what type of
    load do we want on the system, doing / thrashing / kicking the crap out of
    what and for how long?
    I'm not a kernel hacker (yet), so I can't answer these questions
    as well as I'd want ...

    -Seth


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:39    [W:0.035 / U:91.684 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site