Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 12 Apr 1997 22:57:36 -0400 (EDT) | From | "Seth M. Landsman" <> | Subject | Re: Re[2]: Kernel testing |
| |
On Sat, 12 Apr 1997, Dave Wreski wrote:
> > Of course the testing suite will only be used by people who know > > that they are using it, know what is being used and know what might > > happen. I think it would be a wonderful idea to include some of the minor > > tests, such as ensure system calls do what they should be doing as part of > > the kernel suite (make test idea), but the stress tests are something > > different. > > I would expect it to be treated as an rpm that someone could download and > install, not something we would hide from them. I would think a nice way > to do it would be to use this program when you think you have a bug, or > your kernel crashes..
I do think that the kernel lacks basic tests which quite possibly should be there. Just because it compiles doesn't mean that it is okay to run and use. There should be a `make test` step in kernel compilation that ensures some basic truisms about the kernel, such as return values of functions and the ability to boot. What is the concensus to this?
> Please, if this continues take it offline, before the developers get > pissed.
I think that it is vitally important that the developers have input into the nature of testing ... I agree that the network v. non-network thread should die.
-Seth
| |