lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Dec]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4.14 00/95] 4.14.4-stable review
On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 08:11:26PM +0530, Sumit Semwal wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> On 5 December 2017 at 11:54, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 03:12:45PM -0600, Tom Gall wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > On Dec 4, 2017, at 9:59 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.14.4 release.
> >> > There are 95 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> >> > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> >> > let me know.
> >> >
> >> > Responses should be made by Wed Dec 6 16:00:27 UTC 2017.
> >> > Anything received after that time might be too late.
> >> >
> >> > The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
> >> > kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/stable-review/patch-4.14.4-rc1.gz
> >> > or in the git tree and branch at:
> >> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-4.14.y
> >> > and the diffstat can be found below.
> >> >
> >> > thanks,
> >> >
> >> > greg k-h
> >> >
> >>
> >> Compiled, booted and ran the following package unit tests without regressions on x86_64
> >>
> >> boringssl :
> >> go test target:0/0/5764/5764/5764 PASS
> >> ssl_test : 10 pass
> >> crypto_test : 28 pass
> >> e2fsprogs:
> >> make check : 340 pass
> >> sqlite
> >> make test : 143914 pass
> >> drm
> >> make check : 15 pass
> >> modetest, drmdevice : pass
> >> alsa-lib
> >> make check : 2 pass
> >> bluez
> >> make check : 25 pass
> >> libusb
> >> stress : 4 pass
> >
> > How do the above tests stress the kernel? Aren't they just
> > verifications that the source code in the package is correct?
> >
> > I guess it proves something, but have you ever seen the above regress in
> > _any_ kernel release?
> >
> > I know the drm developers have a huge test suite that they use to verify
> > their kernel changes, why not use that?
>
> Are you referring to the igt-gpu-tools [1]? They also have a CI [2]
> that runs these tests, but almost 98% of the tests are i915 specific /
> can be only tested on i915 for now. Though I have chatted with Daniel
> V a couple of times, and we do see a good scope of collaboration in
> getting these tested on ARM as well.

Well, you all are testing x86 for the stable trees, right, why can't you
run the i915 tests? :)

> Also, these are drm-specific tests, not testing generic kernel
> features per-se. Just my 2 cents here.

drm-specific things _are_ part of the kernel api, right?

thanks,

greg k-h

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-12-06 16:34    [W:0.111 / U:1.216 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site