On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 09:47 +0530, sudhir kumar wrote: > Ok Then. So my idea is to include the patch in autotest and let the > people report failures(in compilation or execution), and we can patch > autotest to apply the fix patch and build and run ltp. I do not think > we can find all cases untill and unless we start execution. > > However I will start the discussion on the ltp list and see the > response from people. At least we can get the new testcases to be > aware of virtualization. Great. Such a thing would be a welcome discussion, provided you also propose us the way to do it, and how it would not affect the existing result analysis. Regards-- Subrata > > On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Martin Bligh<mbligh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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
