Menu
▾
▴
crackerjack-users — crackerjack (linux kernel regression tests) users mailing list
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2006 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(3) |
Nov
(2) |
Dec
(13) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 |
Jan
(2) |
Feb
|
Mar
(1) |
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
(1) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2008 |
Jan
(2) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
(2) |
May
(5) |
Jun
(16) |
Jul
(17) |
Aug
(3) |
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(1) |
Dec
|
| 2009 |
Jan
|
Feb
(6) |
Mar
(8) |
Apr
(2) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(1) |
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2012 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(2) |
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
From: Nagamani M. <nag...@hu...> - 2012-03-02 05:13:38
|
Hi All ,
Compiling the latest crackerjack(3.2) on the kernel version( 3.2.5) , found lot of compilation errors .
Does Crackerjack ( 3.2) is compatabile for kernel version ( 3..2.5) .
Observed lot of changes between the latest cracker jack git and the downloaded tool .
Can anyone provide me the information on this?
Regards,
Mani
|
|
From: Nagamani M. <nag...@hu...> - 2012-03-02 03:55:12
|
Hi All ,
New to start with cracker jack tool . My Pc was installed with the kernel "3.2.5" and trying to install "crackerjack-3.2 tool " , but found there are lot of compilation errors .
I have seen lot of changes between the latest git related to crackerjack and the one which i have downloaded "crackerjack-3.2" . I would like to have clarifications
1) Whether the crackerjack-3.2 is compatabile with the kernel version ( 3.2.5 )
2) Is the build error is common for all the architectures ( x86_64 ) . Do i have to port changes from git
Regards,
Mani
This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it!
|
|
From: <his...@hi...> - 2009-10-15 00:50:31
|
All, We are pleased to announce that new Crackerjack site has opened yesterday 14:00 JST. You can reach at: http://ossipedia.ipa.go.jp/crackerjack We also would like to let you know that Autotest site has a link pointing to our site. http://test.kernel.org/tko Thank you for your collaboration and contribution. Regards, Hisashi Hashimoto Board of Director, the Linux Foundation, Senior Engineer Open Source Software Promotion Center Enterprise Business Planning Hitachi, Ltd., Software Division Tel : +81-45-862-8470, Fax : +81-45-862-8471 his...@hi... |
|
From: <his...@hi...> - 2009-04-22 03:29:34
|
Sorry, Title has been changed. ------------------------------------------------------- Hi, All who are working on CrackerJack project, I am Hisashi Hashimoto of Hitachi, working as Board member of the Linux Foundation. In this e-mail, I would like to encourage you to send CFP( call for participatiion) of Japan Linux Symposium (http://events-dev.linuxfoundation.jp/events/japan-linux-symposium) As you may know, the due date of JLS presentation proposal is May 1st. It must be important one because it will be followed by the kernel summit in Asia (Tokyo), the first time in Asia area, therefore you have very good opportunity to talk, discuss and present your idea, activities on your current project with kernel maintainters. Why don't you try to take this great chance! To regsiter JLS, you are only need to post: - The session title - Abstract (150 words) - Biography (150 words) .Also I would like to notify you of that I would try to propose the mini work group tracks which Test related engineers will gather. # Don't worry. You are not required to prepare Japanese text. # All above should be in English. ;) Hisashi Hashimoto Board of Director of the Linux Foundation, Section Manager Open Source Software Promotion Center Platform Software Hitachi, Ltd., Software Division Tel : +81-45-862-8424, Fax : +81-45-862-9047 his...@hi... |
|
From: <his...@hi...> - 2009-04-22 03:28:56
|
Hi, All who are working on CrackerJack project, I am Hisashi Hashimoto of Hitachi, working as Board member of the Linux Foundation. In this e-mail, I would like to encourage you to send CFP( call for participatiion) of Japan Linux Symposium (http://events-dev.linuxfoundation.jp/events/japan-linux-symposium) As you may know, the due date of JLS presentation proposal is May 1st. It must be important one because it will be followed by the kernel summit in Asia (Tokyo), the first time in Asia area, therefore you have very good opportunity to talk, discuss and present your idea, activities on your current project with kernel maintainters. Why don't you try to take this great chance! To regsiter JLS, you are only need to post: - The session title - Abstract (150 words) - Biography (150 words) .Also I would like to notify you of that I would try to propose the mini work group tracks which Test related engineers will gather. # Don't worry. You are not required to prepare Japanese text. # All above should be in English. ;) Hisashi Hashimoto Board of Director of the Linux Foundation, Section Manager Open Source Software Promotion Center Platform Software Hitachi, Ltd., Software Division Tel : +81-45-862-8424, Fax : +81-45-862-9047 his...@hi... |
|
From: <his...@hi...> - 2009-03-30 02:00:05
|
Hi, Sorry for late getting back to you. Please read following document for the installation and run. http://crackerjack.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/crackerjack/trunk/viewsite/README?revision=HEAD&view=markup You can download(svn checkout) the source code from following URL. https://crackerjack.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/crackerjack or https://crackerjack.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/crackerjack/trunk/viewsite Thanks, Hashimoto Hisashi >Hi, > >Could you send me the HTML generation program please. > >Thanks, > >Julien Merlin. > >2009/3/23 <his...@hi...> > >> Julien, >> >> I added <cracker-jack-devel> ML. >> >> Current implementation of crackerjack contains procedure of HTML generation >> internally. >> In future, as your suggestion, we would like to remove this procedure and >> use Autotest, >> but it is now under developement. >> >> This generation process is written in Ruby on Rails. >> If you have "Ruby on Rails", we will send the generation program and >> you can use it. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Hashimoto Hisashi >> >> >Hi ! >> > >> >I start to use Crackerjack and i successfully generated results files. I >> >compare results of 2 differents kernels with the GTK interface. >> >I would like to know how do you generate HTML report ? (like this : >> >http://crackerjack.good-day.net/cjk/compare_results) >> > >> >I think this could be done with autotest ? But i really don't know >> anything >> >about it, so can you help me please ? >> > >> >Cheers, >> > >> >Julien Merlin >> > >> Hisashi Hashimoto >> Section Manager >> Open Source Software Promotion Center >> Platform Software >> Hitachi, Ltd., Software Division >> Tel : +81-45-862-8424, Fax : +81-45-862-9047 >> his...@hi... >> > Hisashi Hashimoto Section Manager Open Source Software Promotion Center Platform Software Hitachi, Ltd., Software Division Tel : +81-45-862-8424, Fax : +81-45-862-9047 his...@hi... |
|
From: <his...@hi...> - 2009-03-23 07:59:10
|
Julien, I added <cracker-jack-devel> ML. Current implementation of crackerjack contains procedure of HTML generation internally. In future, as your suggestion, we would like to remove this procedure and use Autotest, but it is now under developement. This generation process is written in Ruby on Rails. If you have "Ruby on Rails", we will send the generation program and you can use it. Thanks, Hashimoto Hisashi >Hi ! > >I start to use Crackerjack and i successfully generated results files. I >compare results of 2 differents kernels with the GTK interface. >I would like to know how do you generate HTML report ? (like this : >http://crackerjack.good-day.net/cjk/compare_results) > >I think this could be done with autotest ? But i really don't know anything >about it, so can you help me please ? > >Cheers, > >Julien Merlin > Hisashi Hashimoto Section Manager Open Source Software Promotion Center Platform Software Hitachi, Ltd., Software Division Tel : +81-45-862-8424, Fax : +81-45-862-9047 his...@hi... |
|
From: Kazuhiro N. <zn...@mb...> - 2009-03-23 02:31:24
|
Hi, At Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:31:11 +0900, <his...@hi...> wrote: > > When i launch ./CrackerJack -g and compare results, I only have regression > and error ! > > But when i look log file on for example "uname", the 2 tests log are PASS, > and the cerr.log is : > [: 70: ==: unexpected error > > Can you tell me what the problem ? It's a bashism of testcases/default-compare. It should be = instead of == in [ ... ] of POSIX sh. Workaround is following patch: --- testcases/default-compare.orig 2008-04-01 18:22:18.000000000 +0900 +++ testcases/default-compare 2009-03-23 10:58:44.611393285 +0900 @@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ # invoke diff diff -u "$expResult" "$curResult" >&2 -if [ $? == 0 ]; then +if [ $? = 0 ]; then echo "OK" else echo "NG" > I use the 2.1 version, downloaded from sourceforge. This problem already fixed in trunk. Yoon-san, how do you make the package of 2.1.0? -- |Kazuhiro NISHIYAMA |
|
From: <his...@hi...> - 2009-03-22 23:31:46
|
Hi, Crackerjack Guys, Please answer following question. Thx, Hashimoto Hisasi --------------- Begin of forwarded message ---------------------- TO: 橋本＿尚; <su...@li...> 送信者 ： Julien Merlin <mer...@gm...> 主題 ： Re: System regression tests 受信日 ：09/03/21 00:41 属性 ： なし Hi, I just test Crackerjack and I have a problem. I explain you my work : I ran ./crackerjack -x on a fresh Ubuntu LTS 8.04 install and on a Ubuntu 8.10. When i launch ./CrackerJack -g and compare results, I only have regression and error ! But when i look log file on for example "uname", the 2 tests log are PASS, and the cerr.log is : [: 70: ==: unexpected error Can you tell me what the problem ? I use the 2.1 version, downloaded from sourceforge. Best regards, Julien Merlin. ---------------- End of forwarded message ----------------------- Hisashi Hashimoto Section Manager Open Source Software Promotion Center Platform Software Hitachi, Ltd., Software Division Tel : +81-45-862-8424, Fax : +81-45-862-9047 his...@hi... |
|
From: Julien M. <mer...@gm...> - 2009-03-20 09:01:27
|
Hi ! I start to use Crackerjack and i successfully generated results files. I compare results of 2 differents kernels with the GTK interface. I would like to know how do you generate HTML report ? (like this : http://crackerjack.good-day.net/cjk/compare_results) I think this could be done with autotest ? But i really don't know anything about it, so can you help me please ? Cheers, Julien Merlin |
|
From: <his...@hi...> - 2009-03-19 03:56:00
|
Julien, Nice to talk to you. Pls join our mailing lists. crackerjack-devel https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/crackerjack-devel crackerjack-users https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/crackerjack-users "RDB" is an abbreviation of "Relational Data Base". When we started this project, we had planed to store our test data(results) into data base. But, current implementation is based on plain file. We are planning to enhance crackerjack to run under Autotest harnes, we are planing to implement MySQL based system. If you have other questions, please post them to crackerjack mailing lists. Thanks for contacting. Hashimoto Hisashi >Hi, > >I'am looking for tools to test functional system regression. > >I have read papers and docs about Linux Test Project, and I discovered >Crackerjack. > >Can you tell me what is the RDB box in this slide from presentation >http://crackerjack.sourceforge.net/RegTest060912update.ppt (I send the slide >in attachment) ? > >thanks you for helping, > >Regards, > >Julien Merlin > Hisashi Hashimoto Section Manager Open Source Software Promotion Center Platform Software Hitachi, Ltd., Software Division Tel : +81-45-862-8424, Fax : +81-45-862-9047 his...@hi... |
|
From: <his...@hi...> - 2009-03-10 02:30:38
|
Hi, I am working on Crackerjack project. Both in Portland and in OLS seem to be difficult, I think. I prefer Plumbers, because as Greg said developers from libc to kernel would join this meeting, and other test project would join Plumbers.. LTP has a lot of layers of test cases, I think Plumbers would provide good opportunity to talk with them. I am also starting to have Test summit in this October in Japan. Because Kernel Summit followed by 3 days Conference will be held in Japan, I think this is a good opportunity that test engineers, especially who are located in Asian area, can talk / discuss with Kernel Engineers. So, my idea is having Test Summit in both Portland and Japan. What about this idea ? Hashimoto Hisashi >On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:08:02PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> On Friday 27 February 2009 22:11:07 Greg KH wrote: >> > On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:03:30PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> > > On Friday 27 February 2009 21:05:32 Michael Kerrisk wrote: >> > > > On 2/27/09, Subrata Modak <su...@li...> wrote: >> > > > > The Linux Test project has been in existence for many years, and, the >> > > > > benefits of this Project has been well established. However, due to >> > > > > several reasons the developers/stakeholders of this project has never >> > > > > meet face to face. Hence, i would like to propose a Mini Summit for >> > > > > LTP on the sidelines of the OLS 2009, scheduled to be held at >> > > > > Montreal, Canada, July 13th-17th, 2009 >> > > > > (http://www.linuxsymposium.org/2009/). >> > > > > >> > > > > The proposal for mini summit has been accepted in principle by the >> > > > > OLS committee. Since, there are no specific summit/meet/conference >> > > > > for LTP developers, this is a very good opportunity for LTP >> > > > > developers to meet side-by-side the OLS, as many of them will be >> > > > > coming to attend/present in the OLS. We can meet and discuss various >> > > > > issues relating to LTP in the same meet, some of them being: >> > > > > >> > > > > i) Presentation/discussion by developers/testers/users on various >> > > > > issues on test infrastructure/environment/test cases. Here we plan to >> > > > > abreast ourselves with several of such issues, and, somebody can take >> > > > > the responsibility for those line item(s), >> > > > > ii) Presentation/discussion by developers/testers/users on what they >> > > > > contributed to LTP, and, what they plan to do in near/far future, >> > > > > iii) Presentation/discussion by Maintainer of the present situation >> > > > > of LTP, and, what he might expect from the community to take this >> > > > > forward, iv) Presentation/discussion by Maintainer on how to increase >> > > > > LTP penetration in other areas (archs, etc) of Linux testing, like >> > > > > the Z-linux, embedded hardware, etc, >> > > > > v) How best to leverage on Project Collaboration like Crackerjack to >> > > > > LTP porting of tests, >> > > > > vi) Other proposals(if any) from the community is also to be >> > > > > discussed. >> > > > > >> > > > > I have discussed this with Andrew J Hutton of OLS committee. He has >> > > > > agreed in principle to lend us a room/accessories to conduct the Mini >> > > > > Summit, provided there are enough attendance of a minimum of 10 >> > > > > people. >> > > > > >> > > > > If all/some of you agree and feel that it would be great for all of >> > > > > us to meet, and we have the enough nos. i can talk to Andrew to >> > > > > confirm a berth for us. >> > > > > >> > > > > Please feel free to propose new agenda and comment on the proposed >> > > > > agenda. >> > > > >> > > > This is a little OT, but I wonder: might this not be better targeted >> > > > at the Plumbers Conference in Portland? It's very much an ecosystem >> > > > topic, which I imagine would be a good fit (see >> > > > http://lwn.net/Articles/319215/ ). Assuming it was a fit, then there >> > > > could actually be a microconf track devoted to the topic. Since >> > > > Plumbers is explicitly a developer oriented conference, and is >> > > > doubling up with LinuxCon, it might be that more potential interested >> > > > parties are at that conference than OLS. (Speaking personally at >> > > > least, if I manage to make it to just one of these, then Plumbers is >> > > > probably the more likely of the two.) >> > > >> > > i'm not so sure ... i see LTP targeting more the low level libc/kernel >> > > interface. the plumbers sit on top of that and LTP doesnt really target >> > > the plumbing layer ... >> > >> > Um, the "plumbers" include the libc / kernel developers, so I think that >> > is a direct target audience :) >> >> like i said, i'm *not* saying both cannot be done. i just think the LS makes >> more sense if there's only going to be one. but maybe i view plumbers as >> sitting higher up the stack than other people (and reality :p). plus, Subrata >> is doing the hard work ... i'm the lazy one. > >My view is that Plumbers is neither higher nor lower in the stack than >LS, but rather that Plumbers has a specific focus on things that involve >multiple layers of the stack. Testing of multiple layers of the stack >seems to me to be pretty important, as a number of the bugs that have >hidden the longest involve interactions between multiple layers. > > Thanx, Paul > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Open Source Business Conference (OSBC), March 24-25, 2009, San Francisco, CA >-OSBC tackles the biggest issue in open source: Open Sourcing the Enterprise >-Strategies to boost innovation and cut costs with open source participation >-Receive a $600 discount off the registration fee with the source code: SFAD >http://p.sf.net/sfu/XcvMzF8H >_______________________________________________ >Crackerjack-devel mailing list >Cra...@li... >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/crackerjack-devel > Hisashi Hashimoto Section Manager Open Source Software Promotion Center Platform Software Hitachi, Ltd., Software Division Tel : +81-45-862-8424, Fax : +81-45-862-9047 his...@hi... |
|
From: Paul E. M. <pa...@li...> - 2009-03-02 04:29:36
|
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:08:02PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Friday 27 February 2009 22:11:07 Greg KH wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:03:30PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > On Friday 27 February 2009 21:05:32 Michael Kerrisk wrote: > > > > On 2/27/09, Subrata Modak <su...@li...> wrote: > > > > > The Linux Test project has been in existence for many years, and, the > > > > > benefits of this Project has been well established. However, due to > > > > > several reasons the developers/stakeholders of this project has never > > > > > meet face to face. Hence, i would like to propose a Mini Summit for > > > > > LTP on the sidelines of the OLS 2009, scheduled to be held at > > > > > Montreal, Canada, July 13th-17th, 2009 > > > > > (http://www.linuxsymposium.org/2009/). > > > > > > > > > > The proposal for mini summit has been accepted in principle by the > > > > > OLS committee. Since, there are no specific summit/meet/conference > > > > > for LTP developers, this is a very good opportunity for LTP > > > > > developers to meet side-by-side the OLS, as many of them will be > > > > > coming to attend/present in the OLS. We can meet and discuss various > > > > > issues relating to LTP in the same meet, some of them being: > > > > > > > > > > i) Presentation/discussion by developers/testers/users on various > > > > > issues on test infrastructure/environment/test cases. Here we plan to > > > > > abreast ourselves with several of such issues, and, somebody can take > > > > > the responsibility for those line item(s), > > > > > ii) Presentation/discussion by developers/testers/users on what they > > > > > contributed to LTP, and, what they plan to do in near/far future, > > > > > iii) Presentation/discussion by Maintainer of the present situation > > > > > of LTP, and, what he might expect from the community to take this > > > > > forward, iv) Presentation/discussion by Maintainer on how to increase > > > > > LTP penetration in other areas (archs, etc) of Linux testing, like > > > > > the Z-linux, embedded hardware, etc, > > > > > v) How best to leverage on Project Collaboration like Crackerjack to > > > > > LTP porting of tests, > > > > > vi) Other proposals(if any) from the community is also to be > > > > > discussed. > > > > > > > > > > I have discussed this with Andrew J Hutton of OLS committee. He has > > > > > agreed in principle to lend us a room/accessories to conduct the Mini > > > > > Summit, provided there are enough attendance of a minimum of 10 > > > > > people. > > > > > > > > > > If all/some of you agree and feel that it would be great for all of > > > > > us to meet, and we have the enough nos. i can talk to Andrew to > > > > > confirm a berth for us. > > > > > > > > > > Please feel free to propose new agenda and comment on the proposed > > > > > agenda. > > > > > > > > This is a little OT, but I wonder: might this not be better targeted > > > > at the Plumbers Conference in Portland? It's very much an ecosystem > > > > topic, which I imagine would be a good fit (see > > > > http://lwn.net/Articles/319215/ ). Assuming it was a fit, then there > > > > could actually be a microconf track devoted to the topic. Since > > > > Plumbers is explicitly a developer oriented conference, and is > > > > doubling up with LinuxCon, it might be that more potential interested > > > > parties are at that conference than OLS. (Speaking personally at > > > > least, if I manage to make it to just one of these, then Plumbers is > > > > probably the more likely of the two.) > > > > > > i'm not so sure ... i see LTP targeting more the low level libc/kernel > > > interface. the plumbers sit on top of that and LTP doesnt really target > > > the plumbing layer ... > > > > Um, the "plumbers" include the libc / kernel developers, so I think that > > is a direct target audience :) > > like i said, i'm *not* saying both cannot be done. i just think the LS makes > more sense if there's only going to be one. but maybe i view plumbers as > sitting higher up the stack than other people (and reality :p). plus, Subrata > is doing the hard work ... i'm the lazy one. My view is that Plumbers is neither higher nor lower in the stack than LS, but rather that Plumbers has a specific focus on things that involve multiple layers of the stack. Testing of multiple layers of the stack seems to me to be pretty important, as a number of the bugs that have hidden the longest involve interactions between multiple layers. Thanx, Paul |
|
From: Mike F. <va...@ge...> - 2009-02-28 04:08:11
|
On Friday 27 February 2009 22:11:07 Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:03:30PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Friday 27 February 2009 21:05:32 Michael Kerrisk wrote: > > > On 2/27/09, Subrata Modak <su...@li...> wrote: > > > > The Linux Test project has been in existence for many years, and, the > > > > benefits of this Project has been well established. However, due to > > > > several reasons the developers/stakeholders of this project has never > > > > meet face to face. Hence, i would like to propose a Mini Summit for > > > > LTP on the sidelines of the OLS 2009, scheduled to be held at > > > > Montreal, Canada, July 13th-17th, 2009 > > > > (http://www.linuxsymposium.org/2009/). > > > > > > > > The proposal for mini summit has been accepted in principle by the > > > > OLS committee. Since, there are no specific summit/meet/conference > > > > for LTP developers, this is a very good opportunity for LTP > > > > developers to meet side-by-side the OLS, as many of them will be > > > > coming to attend/present in the OLS. We can meet and discuss various > > > > issues relating to LTP in the same meet, some of them being: > > > > > > > > i) Presentation/discussion by developers/testers/users on various > > > > issues on test infrastructure/environment/test cases. Here we plan to > > > > abreast ourselves with several of such issues, and, somebody can take > > > > the responsibility for those line item(s), > > > > ii) Presentation/discussion by developers/testers/users on what they > > > > contributed to LTP, and, what they plan to do in near/far future, > > > > iii) Presentation/discussion by Maintainer of the present situation > > > > of LTP, and, what he might expect from the community to take this > > > > forward, iv) Presentation/discussion by Maintainer on how to increase > > > > LTP penetration in other areas (archs, etc) of Linux testing, like > > > > the Z-linux, embedded hardware, etc, > > > > v) How best to leverage on Project Collaboration like Crackerjack to > > > > LTP porting of tests, > > > > vi) Other proposals(if any) from the community is also to be > > > > discussed. > > > > > > > > I have discussed this with Andrew J Hutton of OLS committee. He has > > > > agreed in principle to lend us a room/accessories to conduct the Mini > > > > Summit, provided there are enough attendance of a minimum of 10 > > > > people. > > > > > > > > If all/some of you agree and feel that it would be great for all of > > > > us to meet, and we have the enough nos. i can talk to Andrew to > > > > confirm a berth for us. > > > > > > > > Please feel free to propose new agenda and comment on the proposed > > > > agenda. > > > > > > This is a little OT, but I wonder: might this not be better targeted > > > at the Plumbers Conference in Portland? It's very much an ecosystem > > > topic, which I imagine would be a good fit (see > > > http://lwn.net/Articles/319215/ ). Assuming it was a fit, then there > > > could actually be a microconf track devoted to the topic. Since > > > Plumbers is explicitly a developer oriented conference, and is > > > doubling up with LinuxCon, it might be that more potential interested > > > parties are at that conference than OLS. (Speaking personally at > > > least, if I manage to make it to just one of these, then Plumbers is > > > probably the more likely of the two.) > > > > i'm not so sure ... i see LTP targeting more the low level libc/kernel > > interface. the plumbers sit on top of that and LTP doesnt really target > > the plumbing layer ... > > Um, the "plumbers" include the libc / kernel developers, so I think that > is a direct target audience :) like i said, i'm *not* saying both cannot be done. i just think the LS makes more sense if there's only going to be one. but maybe i view plumbers as sitting higher up the stack than other people (and reality :p). plus, Subrata is doing the hard work ... i'm the lazy one. -mike |
|
From: Greg KH <gr...@su...> - 2009-02-28 03:32:02
|
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:03:30PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Friday 27 February 2009 21:05:32 Michael Kerrisk wrote: > > On 2/27/09, Subrata Modak <su...@li...> wrote: > > > The Linux Test project has been in existence for many years, and, the > > > benefits of this Project has been well established. However, due to > > > several reasons the developers/stakeholders of this project has never > > > meet face to face. Hence, i would like to propose a Mini Summit for LTP > > > on the sidelines of the OLS 2009, scheduled to be held at Montreal, > > > Canada, July 13th-17th, 2009 (http://www.linuxsymposium.org/2009/). > > > > > > The proposal for mini summit has been accepted in principle by the OLS > > > committee. Since, there are no specific summit/meet/conference for LTP > > > developers, this is a very good opportunity for LTP developers to meet > > > side-by-side the OLS, as many of them will be coming to attend/present > > > in the OLS. We can meet and discuss various issues relating to LTP in > > > the same meet, some of them being: > > > > > > i) Presentation/discussion by developers/testers/users on various issues > > > on test infrastructure/environment/test cases. Here we plan to abreast > > > ourselves with several of such issues, and, somebody can take the > > > responsibility for those line item(s), > > > ii) Presentation/discussion by developers/testers/users on what they > > > contributed to LTP, and, what they plan to do in near/far future, > > > iii) Presentation/discussion by Maintainer of the present situation of > > > LTP, and, what he might expect from the community to take this forward, > > > iv) Presentation/discussion by Maintainer on how to increase LTP > > > penetration in other areas (archs, etc) of Linux testing, like the > > > Z-linux, embedded hardware, etc, > > > v) How best to leverage on Project Collaboration like Crackerjack to LTP > > > porting of tests, > > > vi) Other proposals(if any) from the community is also to be discussed. > > > > > > I have discussed this with Andrew J Hutton of OLS committee. He has > > > agreed in principle to lend us a room/accessories to conduct the Mini > > > Summit, provided there are enough attendance of a minimum of 10 people. > > > > > > If all/some of you agree and feel that it would be great for all of us > > > to meet, and we have the enough nos. i can talk to Andrew to confirm a > > > berth for us. > > > > > > Please feel free to propose new agenda and comment on the proposed > > > agenda. > > > > This is a little OT, but I wonder: might this not be better targeted > > at the Plumbers Conference in Portland? It's very much an ecosystem > > topic, which I imagine would be a good fit (see > > http://lwn.net/Articles/319215/ ). Assuming it was a fit, then there > > could actually be a microconf track devoted to the topic. Since > > Plumbers is explicitly a developer oriented conference, and is > > doubling up with LinuxCon, it might be that more potential interested > > parties are at that conference than OLS. (Speaking personally at > > least, if I manage to make it to just one of these, then Plumbers is > > probably the more likely of the two.) > > i'm not so sure ... i see LTP targeting more the low level libc/kernel > interface. the plumbers sit on top of that and LTP doesnt really target the > plumbing layer ... Um, the "plumbers" include the libc / kernel developers, so I think that is a direct target audience :) thanks, greg k-h |
|
From: Mike F. <va...@ge...> - 2009-02-28 03:03:40
|
On Friday 27 February 2009 21:05:32 Michael Kerrisk wrote: > On 2/27/09, Subrata Modak <su...@li...> wrote: > > The Linux Test project has been in existence for many years, and, the > > benefits of this Project has been well established. However, due to > > several reasons the developers/stakeholders of this project has never > > meet face to face. Hence, i would like to propose a Mini Summit for LTP > > on the sidelines of the OLS 2009, scheduled to be held at Montreal, > > Canada, July 13th-17th, 2009 (http://www.linuxsymposium.org/2009/). > > > > The proposal for mini summit has been accepted in principle by the OLS > > committee. Since, there are no specific summit/meet/conference for LTP > > developers, this is a very good opportunity for LTP developers to meet > > side-by-side the OLS, as many of them will be coming to attend/present > > in the OLS. We can meet and discuss various issues relating to LTP in > > the same meet, some of them being: > > > > i) Presentation/discussion by developers/testers/users on various issues > > on test infrastructure/environment/test cases. Here we plan to abreast > > ourselves with several of such issues, and, somebody can take the > > responsibility for those line item(s), > > ii) Presentation/discussion by developers/testers/users on what they > > contributed to LTP, and, what they plan to do in near/far future, > > iii) Presentation/discussion by Maintainer of the present situation of > > LTP, and, what he might expect from the community to take this forward, > > iv) Presentation/discussion by Maintainer on how to increase LTP > > penetration in other areas (archs, etc) of Linux testing, like the > > Z-linux, embedded hardware, etc, > > v) How best to leverage on Project Collaboration like Crackerjack to LTP > > porting of tests, > > vi) Other proposals(if any) from the community is also to be discussed. > > > > I have discussed this with Andrew J Hutton of OLS committee. He has > > agreed in principle to lend us a room/accessories to conduct the Mini > > Summit, provided there are enough attendance of a minimum of 10 people. > > > > If all/some of you agree and feel that it would be great for all of us > > to meet, and we have the enough nos. i can talk to Andrew to confirm a > > berth for us. > > > > Please feel free to propose new agenda and comment on the proposed > > agenda. > > This is a little OT, but I wonder: might this not be better targeted > at the Plumbers Conference in Portland? It's very much an ecosystem > topic, which I imagine would be a good fit (see > http://lwn.net/Articles/319215/ ). Assuming it was a fit, then there > could actually be a microconf track devoted to the topic. Since > Plumbers is explicitly a developer oriented conference, and is > doubling up with LinuxCon, it might be that more potential interested > parties are at that conference than OLS. (Speaking personally at > least, if I manage to make it to just one of these, then Plumbers is > probably the more likely of the two.) i'm not so sure ... i see LTP targeting more the low level libc/kernel interface. the plumbers sit on top of that and LTP doesnt really target the plumbing layer ... i'm not saying LTP cant do both ;), just that the LS seems more of an appropriate forum in terms of content. the higher price tag does discourage a lot of people from not showing up where as that barrier doesnt exist with the plumbers conf ... -mike |
|
From: Paul E. M. <pa...@li...> - 2009-02-28 02:38:18
|
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 03:05:32PM +1300, Michael Kerrisk wrote: > Hi Subrata, > > [CC+=Paul McKenney] > > On 2/27/09, Subrata Modak <su...@li...> wrote: > > Hello All, > > > > The Linux Test project has been in existence for many years, and, the > > benefits of this Project has been well established. However, due to > > several reasons the developers/stakeholders of this project has never > > meet face to face. Hence, i would like to propose a Mini Summit for LTP > > on the sidelines of the OLS 2009, scheduled to be held at Montreal, > > Canada, July 13th-17th, 2009 (http://www.linuxsymposium.org/2009/). > > > > The proposal for mini summit has been accepted in principle by the OLS > > committee. Since, there are no specific summit/meet/conference for LTP > > developers, this is a very good opportunity for LTP developers to meet > > side-by-side the OLS, as many of them will be coming to attend/present > > in the OLS. We can meet and discuss various issues relating to LTP in > > the same meet, some of them being: > > > > i) Presentation/discussion by developers/testers/users on various issues > > on test infrastructure/environment/test cases. Here we plan to abreast > > ourselves with several of such issues, and, somebody can take the > > responsibility for those line item(s), > > ii) Presentation/discussion by developers/testers/users on what they > > contributed to LTP, and, what they plan to do in near/far future, > > iii) Presentation/discussion by Maintainer of the present situation of > > LTP, and, what he might expect from the community to take this forward, > > iv) Presentation/discussion by Maintainer on how to increase LTP > > penetration in other areas (archs, etc) of Linux testing, like the > > Z-linux, embedded hardware, etc, > > v) How best to leverage on Project Collaboration like Crackerjack to LTP > > porting of tests, > > vi) Other proposals(if any) from the community is also to be discussed. > > > > I have discussed this with Andrew J Hutton of OLS committee. He has > > agreed in principle to lend us a room/accessories to conduct the Mini > > Summit, provided there are enough attendance of a minimum of 10 people. > > > > If all/some of you agree and feel that it would be great for all of us > > to meet, and we have the enough nos. i can talk to Andrew to confirm a > > berth for us. > > > > Please feel free to propose new agenda and comment on the proposed > > agenda. > > This is a little OT, but I wonder: might this not be better targeted > at the Plumbers Conference in Portland? It's very much an ecosystem > topic, which I imagine would be a good fit (see > http://lwn.net/Articles/319215/ ). Assuming it was a fit, then there > could actually be a microconf track devoted to the topic. Since > Plumbers is explicitly a developer oriented conference, and is > doubling up with LinuxCon, it might be that more potential interested > parties are at that conference than OLS. (Speaking personally at > least, if I manage to make it to just one of these, then Plumbers is > probably the more likely of the two.) I can forward to the LPC program committee, some of whom you already have contacted. Could you please also post at the LWN site: http://lwn.net/Articles/319215/ Thanx, Paul |
|
From: Michael K. <mtk...@go...> - 2009-02-28 02:36:11
|
Hi Subrata, [CC+=Paul McKenney] On 2/27/09, Subrata Modak <su...@li...> wrote: > Hello All, > > The Linux Test project has been in existence for many years, and, the > benefits of this Project has been well established. However, due to > several reasons the developers/stakeholders of this project has never > meet face to face. Hence, i would like to propose a Mini Summit for LTP > on the sidelines of the OLS 2009, scheduled to be held at Montreal, > Canada, July 13th-17th, 2009 (http://www.linuxsymposium.org/2009/). > > The proposal for mini summit has been accepted in principle by the OLS > committee. Since, there are no specific summit/meet/conference for LTP > developers, this is a very good opportunity for LTP developers to meet > side-by-side the OLS, as many of them will be coming to attend/present > in the OLS. We can meet and discuss various issues relating to LTP in > the same meet, some of them being: > > i) Presentation/discussion by developers/testers/users on various issues > on test infrastructure/environment/test cases. Here we plan to abreast > ourselves with several of such issues, and, somebody can take the > responsibility for those line item(s), > ii) Presentation/discussion by developers/testers/users on what they > contributed to LTP, and, what they plan to do in near/far future, > iii) Presentation/discussion by Maintainer of the present situation of > LTP, and, what he might expect from the community to take this forward, > iv) Presentation/discussion by Maintainer on how to increase LTP > penetration in other areas (archs, etc) of Linux testing, like the > Z-linux, embedded hardware, etc, > v) How best to leverage on Project Collaboration like Crackerjack to LTP > porting of tests, > vi) Other proposals(if any) from the community is also to be discussed. > > I have discussed this with Andrew J Hutton of OLS committee. He has > agreed in principle to lend us a room/accessories to conduct the Mini > Summit, provided there are enough attendance of a minimum of 10 people. > > If all/some of you agree and feel that it would be great for all of us > to meet, and we have the enough nos. i can talk to Andrew to confirm a > berth for us. > > Please feel free to propose new agenda and comment on the proposed > agenda. This is a little OT, but I wonder: might this not be better targeted at the Plumbers Conference in Portland? It's very much an ecosystem topic, which I imagine would be a good fit (see http://lwn.net/Articles/319215/ ). Assuming it was a fit, then there could actually be a microconf track devoted to the topic. Since Plumbers is explicitly a developer oriented conference, and is doubling up with LinuxCon, it might be that more potential interested parties are at that conference than OLS. (Speaking personally at least, if I manage to make it to just one of these, then Plumbers is probably the more likely of the two.) Cheers, Michael |
|
From: Subrata M. <su...@li...> - 2009-02-27 09:16:21
|
Hello All, The Linux Test project has been in existence for many years, and, the benefits of this Project has been well established. However, due to several reasons the developers/stakeholders of this project has never meet face to face. Hence, i would like to propose a Mini Summit for LTP on the sidelines of the OLS 2009, scheduled to be held at Montreal, Canada, July 13th-17th, 2009 (http://www.linuxsymposium.org/2009/). The proposal for mini summit has been accepted in principle by the OLS committee. Since, there are no specific summit/meet/conference for LTP developers, this is a very good opportunity for LTP developers to meet side-by-side the OLS, as many of them will be coming to attend/present in the OLS. We can meet and discuss various issues relating to LTP in the same meet, some of them being: i) Presentation/discussion by developers/testers/users on various issues on test infrastructure/environment/test cases. Here we plan to abreast ourselves with several of such issues, and, somebody can take the responsibility for those line item(s), ii) Presentation/discussion by developers/testers/users on what they contributed to LTP, and, what they plan to do in near/far future, iii) Presentation/discussion by Maintainer of the present situation of LTP, and, what he might expect from the community to take this forward, iv) Presentation/discussion by Maintainer on how to increase LTP penetration in other areas (archs, etc) of Linux testing, like the Z-linux, embedded hardware, etc, v) How best to leverage on Project Collaboration like Crackerjack to LTP porting of tests, vi) Other proposals(if any) from the community is also to be discussed. I have discussed this with Andrew J Hutton of OLS committee. He has agreed in principle to lend us a room/accessories to conduct the Mini Summit, provided there are enough attendance of a minimum of 10 people. If all/some of you agree and feel that it would be great for all of us to meet, and we have the enough nos. i can talk to Andrew to confirm a berth for us. Please feel free to propose new agenda and comment on the proposed agenda. Regards-- Subrata |
|
From: Mike F. <va...@ge...> - 2008-11-02 06:10:51
|
On Monday 18 August 2008, Masatake YAMATO wrote: > > 2.5) LTP should start focusing on IN-KERNEL-API testing, basically > > testing the API´s which are available only inside the kernel. > > Comparing with system calls, I think IN-KERNEL-API has much chances to > be tested well tested by the other kernel code. So the bug newly > injected to IN-KERNEL-API-IMPLEMENTATION will be found quickly. In > addition such APIs will be changed quickly. It means test cases for > usch API becomes garbage quickly. yeah, because in kernel api changes so fast, any out-of-tree testing would be a huge time sink on our side. i asked some time ago on lkml about adding an in-kernel testing framework, but response was largely negative. if the testing framework isnt merged into mainline, then i dont think we should spend any time on in kernel api testing at all. -mike |
|
From: Garrett C. <yan...@gm...> - 2008-08-20 01:40:51
|
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 7:43 PM, Masatake YAMATO <ya...@re...> wrote: >> 2.5) LTP should start focusing on IN-KERNEL-API testing, basically >> testing the API´s which are available only inside the kernel. > > Comparing with system calls, I think IN-KERNEL-API has much chances to > be tested well tested by the other kernel code. So the bug newly > injected to IN-KERNEL-API-IMPLEMENTATION will be found quickly. In > addition such APIs will be changed quickly. It means test cases for > usch API becomes garbage quickly. > > I think it will be more fruity if LTP people look at > OUTSIDE-KERNEL-BEHAVIOR with using kvm(or other vitalization > technologies) ; e.g. we can conduct a test kernel behavior when > plugging a usb device to a computer. > > Masatake YAMATO Whitebox testing is a must because chasing down issues with blackbox tests becomes annoying sometimes, and more importantly code coverage can be lower than desired with blackbox tests. "Graybox" testing (if I understand my manager's use of the term correctly) is the majority of what LTP does nowadays though (only selectively works API's which are unmasked to end users)... How deep you want to dig into the rabbit hole is up to you as a test writer with your unit tests, but the level of functional testing done and the coverage attempted without being tied too much to a given arch or device or non-common feature-anchored set of API's is fairly substantial compared to other opensource test suites. -Garrett |
|
From: Masatake Y. <ya...@re...> - 2008-08-19 02:43:48
|
> 2.5) LTP should start focusing on IN-KERNEL-API testing, basically > testing the API´s which are available only inside the kernel. Comparing with system calls, I think IN-KERNEL-API has much chances to be tested well tested by the other kernel code. So the bug newly injected to IN-KERNEL-API-IMPLEMENTATION will be found quickly. In addition such APIs will be changed quickly. It means test cases for usch API becomes garbage quickly. I think it will be more fruity if LTP people look at OUTSIDE-KERNEL-BEHAVIOR with using kvm(or other vitalization technologies) ; e.g. we can conduct a test kernel behavior when plugging a usb device to a computer. Masatake YAMATO |
|
From: Subrata M. <su...@li...> - 2008-08-18 14:15:51
|
Hi, Thank you very much for the feedback/opinion that you provided regarding Issue #1 for kernel-Autobuild in LTP. I will study everybodys´ comments and reply back soon. However, here goes Issue #2 (In-fact contains more sub issues). It comes from somebody who works very closely with The Linux Foundation. It seems the following issues in LTP should be addressed most urgently: 2.1) All LTP tests should run faster, 2.2) LTP should give clear results, either PASS or FAIL. People are not interested in Partial results, i,e, they should not bother about BROK, CONF, WARN, RETR, etc stuff. What they want is either PASS or FAIL. The basic message is that kernel developers may not become experts in LTP, but they should be able to decipher the results easily by pointing to exactly PASS-ed or FAIL-ed, 2.3) Cleanup tests that hardly matter any more as the kernel has evolved quite stable, like syscalls tests for read(), write(), etc for which the possibility for introduction of regressions issue(s) are very less. They want these tests to be removed from LTP. While i personally do not favour removing any tests from LTP, what can be done is to disable some commonly agreed tests, which will not run by default. If you think, you have such lists, then i can disable them from running, and, not completely removing them from LTP, 2.4) Fix LTP´s false positives. There has been such complaints in the past that certain tests throw up messages they should not have done under that circumstance(s). But i have not exactly understood the concept of false positives. When i tried to create them, i was not able to. I have tried to address this issue in my paper, 2.5) LTP should start focusing on IN-KERNEL-API testing, basically testing the API´s which are available only inside the kernel. This is something which i liked very much. Till now we have been doing testing only from the user-space. But if we can do testing from within the kernel- space, then we can increase our testing effort(s) for the device drivers as well. Having said that, if you agree to this proposal, we/somebody needs to come up with a template of how such a test should be written and Publish that in: http://ltp.sourceforge.net/documentation/how-to/ltp.php, so that it becomes a LTP standard. But we will have some challenges of how the test case(s) will report results/pass/fail back to the log/output file(s), as i believe, such kind of testing has to be done through loading and unloading of Kernel Modules. Probably (you can propose a better one) we will follow something like: 1) Script that loads/unloads the module (in-kernel test case) - reports any error in loading/unloading. We will handle this through our tst_* set of functions, 2) The actual module has to test the API in the kernel-space and somehow report the result using, say, the dmesg interface, 3) The script should be able to parse out that message and report with the tst_* set of functions, I would again like to know your thoughts on this. Regards-- Subrata |
|
From: Subrata M. <su...@li...> - 2008-07-31 14:45:42
|
Dear All, The Linux Test Project test suite has been released for the month of JULY 2008. The latest version of the test-suite contains 3000+ tests for the Linux OS and can be found at http://ltp.sourceforge.net/. Latest happenings in LTP can also be found at: http://ltp.sourceforge.net/wiki/, http://ltp.sourceforge.net/wikiArchives.php, and, IRC: irc.freenode.org #ltp. JULY 2008 Highlights: * Addition of io_destroy(), io_getevents(), io_setup() & io_submit() tests, * Addition of IO-throttle Controllers test, paving the way for launching of ltp-mm tree, * GCOV Patches for Kernel 2.6.26, * Update to OpenHPI 2.12.0, * Addition of move_pages() tests, * SELinux tests fix, * Memory tests fix, * Filecaps tests fix, * LTP-AIO fix, * Hackbench compilation fix, * Realtime tests fix, etc, JULY 2008 LTP Contributors: * Junjiro Okajima, * Craig Meier, * Stephen Smalley, * Masatake YAMATO, * Peter Oberparleiter, * Ramon de Carvalho Valle, * Matt Fleming, * Serge Hallyn, * Andrea Righi, * Shi Weihua, * Edjunior Barbosa Machado, * Gilles Carry, * Vijay Kumar B, * Veerendra Chandrappa, Note(s) from the Maintainer: I participated in OLS 2008. I was exited to meet lot of people from the community and know their personal opinion about LTP. I patiently heard improvements to be done in LTP and the course of actions we need to take. I will shortly start those discussions on the mailing lists. I was happy to hear that people were happy that the project is active and kicking. The immediate challenge before us is to increase that pace and make it more effective, which i hope we will be able to achieve over a period of time. Our web site also contains other information such as: - A Linux test tools matrix - Technical papers - How To's on Linux testing - Code coverage analysis tool. We would encourage the community to post results to ltp...@li..., patches, new tests, bugs or comments/questions to ltp...@li..., http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=add&group_id=3382&atid=103382 (for New Bug(s)), http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=add&group_id=3382&atid=303382 (for New Patch(s)), http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=add&group_id=3382&atid=353382 (for New Feature Request(s)) Please also see the Change Log Attached (JULY 2008) for detailed changes. Happy testing, Regards-- Subrata, |
|
From: Subrata M. <su...@li...> - 2008-07-30 12:40:12
|
You can find the Paper as well as the presentation i used during the talk here: http://ltp.sourceforge.net/documentation/technical_papers/ Regards-- Subrata |
