Luigi Genoni wrote:
> Problem is:
> there is a lot of HW out there, and we should ALL do stress tests, to have
> a wide basis for HWs and test cases. Basically it is very hard to agree
> about a set of stress tests, because we all have different needs, and our
> tests are based on our needs. That is a streght, because they tend to be
> real life tests.
Sure, no argument there.
> In my esperience, if some default set of tests comes out, then software
> tend to be optimized for this set. And that is badly wrong.
My post was motivated by two observations:
1. Alan Cox complains occasionally that Linus' trees are not well tested,
and can't survive the torture tests that the ac tree goes through before
release. (e.g.
"2.4.8-ac12
I'm trying to make sure I can keep this testable
as 2.4.9 vanilla isnt being stable on my test sets "
2. The STP at OSDLab seems like a great resource that we might be able
to leverage to solve the problem Alan points out.
I'm not suggesting anyone do any less testing. Just the opposite;
if we set things up properly with the STP, we might be able to run
many more tests before each final release.
- Dan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 07 2001 - 21:00:24 EST