Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Yes user-mode linux
> could help here (you could stress test the core kernel without worry
> that when it crashes your machine will crash as well).
A similar approach can be used for very detailed tests of specific
subsystems. E.g. that's what we've started doing, kin
On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Horst von Brand wrote:
> Jonathan Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > >- automated heavy stress testing
>
> > This would be an interesting one to me, from a benchmarking POV. I'd like
> > to know what my hardware can really do, for one thing - it's all very well
> > saying
Jonathan Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >- automated heavy stress testing
> This would be an interesting one to me, from a benchmarking POV. I'd like
> to know what my hardware can really do, for one thing - it's all very well
> saying this box can do X Whetstones and has a 100Mbit NIC, but
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 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?
There is a some truth to this. However for kernel development the
Rik van Riel wrote:
>This is definately a great idea.
[...]
>Note that some of these testing options are almost trivial to
>set up
[...]
If an effort in this direction produced a "kernel-tester.tar.gz"
package, I'm sure lots of people with spare hardware would install
it, and then check it on
>- automated heavy stress testing
This would be an interesting one to me, from a benchmarking POV. I'd like
to know what my hardware can really do, for one thing - it's all very well
saying this box can do X Whetstones and has a 100Mbit NIC, but it's a much
more solid thing to be able to say "my
} On 22 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 thi
We have a start for PPC. It has the title "Regression Tester" but is
actually a "compiles and boots tester". The aim is a automated regression
test.
Take a look at http://altus.drgw.net/
It pulls directly from our BitKeeper archive every time we push a change
and goes through the build targete
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 09:56:16AM -0600, Nathan Straz wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 10:13:04AM -0500, Wade Hampton wrote:
> > However, a lab dedicated to testing the linux kernel, properly
> > funded, staffed, and containing the most common hardware and
> > software would be a good idea. Do
On 22 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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?
This is definately a great idea. A relatively easy
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 10:13:04AM -0500, Wade Hampton wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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?
IMHO, much of the strength of Linux is the very large, extremely
> Regression testing __is__ what happens when 10,000 testers independently
> try to break the software!
Nope. Thats stress testing and a limited amount of coverage testing.
> Canned so-called "regression-test" schemes will fail to test at least
> 90 percent of the code paths, while attempting to
On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Regression testing __is__ what happens when 10,000 testers independently
> > try to break the software!
>
> Nope. Thats stress testing and a limited amount of coverage testing.
>
> > Canned so-called "regression-test" schemes will fail to test at least
>
> "Richard" == Richard B Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Richard> On 22 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 veri
On 22 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 tho
16 matches
Mail list logo
