On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:55:08 -0500 Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 03:11:49PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:09:38 -0500 > > Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Did you test this patch with a large amount of minors? > > > > > > > > Sorry I didn't do runtime test. > > > > > > Please do. > > > > The poor guy probably doesn't know how to test it and surely it would > > be quite a lot of work for him to do so. > > > > Overall, it would be much more efficient if the tester of this code is > > someone who is set up to easily apply the patch and test it. ie: the > > code maintainer(s). > > <grins> > > This patch aside - Andrew how do you deal with a large amount of patches > and make sure they are tested? Not very well :( > Is there a weekly Test Tuesday where you > kick off your automated tests and dilligently look for any variations? > Or is it more of compile the kernel with X features and run it for a week > doing normal (and abnormal!) things to see if it falls over? I build all the patches I have along with all of linux-next and boot the thing, then use the resulting kernel for a few hours compilation testing, then shove it all into linux-next where I naively hope that someone else is testing things. The coverage which is obtained this way is pretty poor. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
