I agree. we now have the initial infrastructure to add more tests. In the meantime, the infrastructure can also use some improvements. For example, it does not deal with kernel crash very well. Any suggestions or past experiences in setting up kernel testing framework are welcome.
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > Vagrant sounds like a real winner. Thanks for working on the kernel > testing infrastructure. I hope that we can start to build up a library > of tests. > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 06:04:31PM -0800, Andy Zhou wrote: >> I have experimented with the user-mode linux about a month back. I was >> not able to get ovs user space to run reliably with the >> (light weight) host-fs file system. It may run better with a >> disk-image (I did not try), but then we willl have to deal with >> building >> and distributing disk-images, which Vagrant solves. >> >> On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 10:52 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: >> > On Sat, Feb 07, 2015 at 01:04:57PM +0100, Thomas Graf wrote: >> >> On 02/06/15 at 10:28pm, Ben Pfaff wrote: >> >> > We already do a ton of kernel module builds in travis, do you mean that >> >> > we should do one for every released kernel, or do you mean something >> >> > else? >> >> >> >> I'm primarily thinking of Andy's work to enable runtime CI as well. >> >> I think the matrix of stable kernels is fine. >> > >> > Oh, yes, that would be very nice. >> > >> > I wonder whether user-mode Linux is usable enough to test OVS. I built >> > a related prototype back in 2008 or so, but I never managed to automate >> > it properly. >> > _______________________________________________ >> > dev mailing list >> > dev@openvswitch.org >> > http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
