Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 11 Apr 1997 11:21:55 -0500 (CDT) | From | Oliver Xymoron <> | Subject | Re: 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.."
| |