Re: [Autotest] [AUTOTEST] [PATCH 1/2] Add latest LTP test in autotest

From: sudhir kumar <smalikphy@gmail.com>
To: Martin Bligh <mbligh@google.com>
Cc: Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues <lmr@redhat.com>,
	Autotest mailing list <autotest@test.kernel.org>,
	Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues <mrodrigu@redhat.com>,
	Uri Lublin <uril@redhat.com>, kvm-devel <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Autotest] [AUTOTEST] [PATCH 1/2] Add latest LTP test in autotest
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 12:54:48 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <a50cf5ab0907070024g2b1519acudd0d1a6a21c630ea@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <33307c790907061137h3da12536q47517b1662498793@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Martin Bligh<mbligh@google.com> wrote:
>>> Issues: LTP has a history of some of the testcases getting broken.
>
> Right, that's always the concern with doing this.
>
>>> Anyways
>>> that has nothing to worry about with respect to autotest. One of the known issue
>>> is broken memory controller issue with latest kernels(cgroups and memory
>>> resource controller enabled kernels). The workaround for them I use is to
>>> disable or delete those tests from ltp source and tar it again with the same
>>> name. Though people might use different workarounds for it.
>
> OK, Can we encapsulate this into the wrapper though, rather than making
> people do it manually? in the existing ltp.patch or something?
>
definitely we can do that, but that needs to know about all the corner
cases of failure. So may be we can continue enhancing the patch as per
the failure reports on different OSes.

1 more thing I wanted to start a discussion on LTP mailing list is to
make aware the testcase if it is running on a physical host or on a
guest(say KVM guest). Testcases like power management, group
scheduling fairness etc do not make much sense to run on a guest(as
they will fail or break). So It is better for the test to recognise
the environment and not execute if it is under virtualization and it
is supposed to fail or break under that environment. Does that make
sense to you also ?

-- 
Sudhir Kumar