lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Mar]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: regression testing
} On 22 Mar 2001 nbecker@fred.net wrote:
}
} > Hi. I was wondering if there has been any discussion of kernel
} > regression testing. Wouldn't it be great if we didn't have to depend
} > on human testers to verify every change didn't break something?
} >
} > OK, I'll admit I haven't given this a lot of thought. What I'm
} > wondering is whether the user-mode linux could help here (allow a way
} > to simulate controlled activity).
} > -
}
} Regression testing __is__ what happens when 10,000 testers independently
} try to break the software!

No, in fact that is not a regression test.

} Canned so-called "regression-test" schemes will fail to test at least
} 90 percent of the code paths, while attempting to "test" 100 percent
} of the code!

A canned set of regression tests would actually do what they're supposed to
- prevent the kernel from regressing. If you fix a bug - write a test for
that bug and keep running it. Something we follow for RTLinux that has
helped us immensely.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:29    [W:0.192 / U:0.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site