On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:24 AM, sudhir kumar<smalikphy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> OK, Can we encapsulate this into the wrapper though, rather than making >> people do it manually? in the existing ltp.patch or something? >> > definitely we can do that, but that needs to know about all the corner > cases of failure. So may be we can continue enhancing the patch as per > the failure reports on different OSes. For the most immediate needs, we could try building LTP with make -k. Plain re-package of LTP kinda goes against our own rules. The preferred way to do testsuite modifications is patching before the execution. So let's strive to use the approach 'upstream package unmodified, patch if needed'. That's how distro package does it, makes sense for us too. > 1 more thing I wanted to start a discussion on LTP mailing list is to > make aware the testcase if it is running on a physical host or on a > guest(say KVM guest). Testcases like power management, group > scheduling fairness etc do not make much sense to run on a guest(as > they will fail or break). So It is better for the test to recognise > the environment and not execute if it is under virtualization and it > is supposed to fail or break under that environment. Does that make > sense to you also ? We need to make an assessment of what we would expect to see failing under a guest. LTP has a fairly large codebase, so it will be a fair amount of work. Lucas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
