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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans