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 Eric.Schenk@dna.lth.se wrote:

    > Oliver Xymoron <oxymoron@waste.org> writes:
    > >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.
    >
    > Well, real stress testing involves twisted minds running things that
    > deliberately try to break the code, preferably under heavy load.

    Agreed - my point is just that stress testing usually has indefinite time
    spans - you can run your test for 10 minutes or overnight if you want more
    confidence.

    > But, let me suggest the Posix conformance suites as a good first past
    > test for stupid brokeness.

    This was something I was considering, and looking at the redistribution
    license (http://www.itl.nist.gov/div897/ctg/softagre.htm), it looks like
    the NIST code could be incorporated into a GPLed test suite because it's
    produced by the government and therefore not protected by copyright.

    --
    "Love the dolphins," she advised him. "Write by W.A.S.T.E.."


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:39    [W:0.019 / U:89.556 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site