On 6 December 2017 at 21:03, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 08:11:26PM +0530, Sumit Semwal wrote: >> Hi Greg, >> >> On 5 December 2017 at 11:54, Greg Kroah-Hartman >> <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 03:12:45PM -0600, Tom Gall wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Dec 4, 2017, at 9:59 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.14.4 release. >> >> > There are 95 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response >> >> > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please >> >> > let me know. >> >> > >> >> > Responses should be made by Wed Dec 6 16:00:27 UTC 2017. >> >> > Anything received after that time might be too late. >> >> > >> >> > The whole patch series can be found in one patch at: >> >> > kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/stable-review/patch-4.14.4-rc1.gz >> >> > or in the git tree and branch at: >> >> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-4.14.y >> >> > and the diffstat can be found below. >> >> > >> >> > thanks, >> >> > >> >> > greg k-h >> >> > >> >> >> >> Compiled, booted and ran the following package unit tests without regressions on x86_64 >> >> >> >> boringssl : >> >> go test target:0/0/5764/5764/5764 PASS >> >> ssl_test : 10 pass >> >> crypto_test : 28 pass >> >> e2fsprogs: >> >> make check : 340 pass >> >> sqlite >> >> make test : 143914 pass >> >> drm >> >> make check : 15 pass >> >> modetest, drmdevice : pass >> >> alsa-lib >> >> make check : 2 pass >> >> bluez >> >> make check : 25 pass >> >> libusb >> >> stress : 4 pass >> > >> > How do the above tests stress the kernel? Aren't they just >> > verifications that the source code in the package is correct? >> > >> > I guess it proves something, but have you ever seen the above regress in >> > _any_ kernel release? >> > >> > I know the drm developers have a huge test suite that they use to verify >> > their kernel changes, why not use that? >> >> Are you referring to the igt-gpu-tools [1]? They also have a CI [2] >> that runs these tests, but almost 98% of the tests are i915 specific / >> can be only tested on i915 for now. Though I have chatted with Daniel >> V a couple of times, and we do see a good scope of collaboration in >> getting these tested on ARM as well. > > Well, you all are testing x86 for the stable trees, right, why can't you > run the i915 tests? :) I'll check with the DRM guys, but my guess is the DRM framework itself is a very fast changing one, and the current i915 tests might not even apply for the stable kernels. :) > >> Also, these are drm-specific tests, not testing generic kernel >> features per-se. Just my 2 cents here. > > drm-specific things _are_ part of the kernel api, right? True that :) By writing this, I did want to highlight that the 'large bucket' wasn't generic features, but a very driver-specific one right now. > > thanks, > > greg k-h