On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 10:55:01PM +0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 04:48:05PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 06:16:35AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 09:47:21PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > > Some of the knobs however are for extending tests for > > > > existing APIs in older kernels, the async and custom fallback one are an > > > > example. There are a series of test cases later added which could help > > > > test LTS kernels. Would Linaro pick these test driver enhancements to help > > > > increase coverage of tests? Or is it not worth it? If its worth it then > > > > what I was curious was how to help make this easier for this process to > > > > bloom. > > > > > > I don't understand, what do you mean by "pick these test driver > > > enhancements"? What kind of "knobs" are there in tests? Shouldn't the > > > tests "just work" with no kind of special configuration of the tests be > > > needed? No user is going to know to enable something special. > > > > Test driver knobs, so for instance the async and custom patches referenced > > enable the shell script to use the async api and the custom API. > > Ah, testing kernel code, that makes more sense. I don't really know, if > the apis are present in the older kernel trees, I don't have a problem > having them be backported to stable kernel releases, as this isn't code > that people are actually running on a "normal" system. Wonderful, will peg test-driver changes as stable then when this fits. I really do think this will make test coverage better. Luis