From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: "Kevin Hilman" Subject: Re: [kernelci] Testing with distros References: <82611570-bbc6-cfaf-e4bc-9b99a899ccb8@collabora.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 16:05:40 -0700 In-Reply-To: <82611570-bbc6-cfaf-e4bc-9b99a899ccb8@collabora.com> (Guillaume Tucker's message of "Fri, 22 Jun 2018 13:34:00 +0100") Message-ID: <7hd0wbkeyj.fsf@baylibre.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain List-ID: To: Guillaume Tucker Cc: kernelci@groups.io "Guillaume Tucker" writes: > One subject that comes up regularly is about testing distributions > against upstream kernels in KernelCI. We've been historically using a > bare buildroot user-space to do boot testing and run very low-level test > cases. We're now starting to produce Debian root file systems for more > advanced test plans and extend the coverage of kernel-user interfaces > (DRM, V4L2...). > > It seems like there would also be some value in having tests that > capture distro user-space breakages due to kernel changes. This may > mean building upstream kernels with a distro config, booting with a > fixed stable user-space from that distro and detecting new failures. > > The next part to be defined would be what tests to run with these > distros, as even booting means choosing which services to start etc... > The point being to increase kernel test coverage without ending up > testing the user-space itself as this would seem outside of the scope of > KernelCI. > > Does this sound like a path worth exploring? It definitely sounds like a path worth exploring, but personally, I'd rather get our kernel-focused testing (and reporting!) figured out using our debian baseline before tackling distros. In particular, I think a kselftest and/or LTP testplan should probably be next on the list. Kevin