Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 10 Aug 2000 14:26:24 -0500 | From | Nathan Straz <> | Subject | Re: [Announce] Linux Test Project |
| |
On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 05:03:15PM +0100, James Sutherland wrote: > On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, David Mansfield wrote: > > Ideally, in the case where something bad but not as fatal as complete > > lockup happens, the test bed should diagnose the fault. This could be > > capturing the oops, or running ps -alx to see where it's stuck. > > Yep. Using a serial console should enable reasonable information capture, > and the script can have a standard set of "failure responses" to run if a > test returns a failure of any sort?
While I definately want to support serial consoles and network logging for large testing environments (like product testing), I also want LTP to work on a single system environment. I think that's important to have for the average Linux hacker. If Joe User finds a problem with in the kernel I want him to be able to run LTP on his box to get detailed testing information that someone else can analyze and use to solve the problem.
> > In all the cases where I've tested the kernel, it has been a matter of > > 'Here is the test which crashes the kernel, let's see if it crashes this > > one, too' and I just want to throw this into the consideration of how to > > best create a test harness. > > Indeed. The other question is, how to handle deadlocks? I'd probably use a > serial console, being logged by another machine; if the machine dies, just > reboot, then have the machine resume testing where it left off.
That would be the easy case. How do you reboot a locked machine over a serial console?
Nate
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |