On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:24 AM, sudhir kumar<smalikphy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Martin Bligh<mbligh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Issues: LTP has a history of some of the testcases getting broken. >> >> Right, that's always the concern with doing this. >> >>>> Anyways >>>> that has nothing to worry about with respect to autotest. One of the known issue >>>> is broken memory controller issue with latest kernels(cgroups and memory >>>> resource controller enabled kernels). The workaround for them I use is to >>>> disable or delete those tests from ltp source and tar it again with the same >>>> name. Though people might use different workarounds for it. >> >> 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. > > 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 ? Yup, we can pass an excluded test list. I really wish they'd fix their tests, but I've been saying that for 6 years now, and it hasn't happened yet ;-( -- 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
