On Tue, 2008-06-10 at 14:47 +0100, Will Newton wrote: > On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 2:33 PM, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-06-10 at 14:25 +0100, Will Newton wrote: > >> Using a kernel compile as a test isn't such a great idea. Stress tests > >> of that kind are not particularly useful for pinning down bugs - so > >> your kernel compile failed, what now? Far better to use LTP tests or > >> similar that are designed to be reproduceable and tunable for your > >> system. For example I don't think I'll ever be able to self host a > >> kernel build on a board with only 32Mb of on-board RAM. > > > > Actually, cross-building on NFS does tend to find a _lot_ of issues > > which crop up with board ports; especially PCI arbitration, DMA > > coherency, cache and MMU issues. LTP often doesn't catch the same > > problems. > > It may trigger a number of bugs, I don't disagree, but as a test it is > a blunt instrument. Yes, it's a blunt instrument, but blunt instruments are often effective. I disagree with your claim that using it as a test isn't a good idea. I would, however, grant you that using it as your _only_ test is a bad idea :) -- dwmw2 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-embedded" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
