From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <7hd0wbkeyj.fsf@baylibre.com> References: <82611570-bbc6-cfaf-e4bc-9b99a899ccb8@collabora.com> <7hd0wbkeyj.fsf@baylibre.com> From: "Matt Hart" Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 14:13:40 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [kernelci] Testing with distros Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003af71c056fb3816e" List-ID: To: kernelci@groups.io Cc: Guillaume Tucker --0000000000003af71c056fb3816e Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On 28 June 2018 at 00:05, Kevin Hilman wrote: > "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. > I'd put distro testing as a long term interest. I like it, but there's a lot of other things that should come first. > In particular, I think a kselftest and/or LTP testplan should probably > be next on the list. > > Kevin > > > > --0000000000003af71c056fb3816e Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On 28 June 2018 at 00:05, Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com>= ; wrote:
"Gu= illaume Tucker" <guil= laume.tucker@gmail.com> writes:

> One subject that comes up regularly is about testing distributions > against upstream kernels in KernelCI.=C2=A0 We've been historical= ly using a
> bare buildroot user-space to do boot testing and run very low-level t= est
> cases.=C2=A0 We're now starting to produce Debian root file syste= ms 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.=C2=A0 This= may
> mean building upstream kernels with a distro config, booting with a > fixed stable user-space from that distro and detecting new failures.<= br> >
> 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.

I'd put distro testing as a long term interest. I like it, but t= here's a lot of other things that should come first.



In particular, I think a kselftest and/or LTP testplan should probably
be next on the list.

Kevin




--0000000000003af71c056fb3816e--