From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752676AbdLFOlz (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Dec 2017 09:41:55 -0500 Received: from mail-oi0-f68.google.com ([209.85.218.68]:46826 "EHLO mail-oi0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752659AbdLFOlr (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Dec 2017 09:41:47 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMZhNWYwfoyqmKQE7NB2Wt3F0qdOxkYGyv1ei0o4LCuk0do6s15YUsEeWCpTe4TUhUru5cJyPPJocCofN3FTgIc= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20171205062434.GA2297@kroah.com> References: <20171204160046.206920966@linuxfoundation.org> <33A49DC6-C9D0-4C76-BCA4-BA1A90C42507@linaro.org> <20171205062434.GA2297@kroah.com> From: Sumit Semwal Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 20:11:26 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.14 00/95] 4.14.4-stable review To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: Tom Gall , LKML , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Guenter Roeck , Shuah Khan , patches@kernelci.org, Ben Hutchings , lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org, linux- stable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Greg, On 5 December 2017 at 11:54, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 03:12:45PM -0600, Tom Gall wrote: >> >> >> > On Dec 4, 2017, at 9:59 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> > >> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.14.4 release. >> > There are 95 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response >> > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please >> > let me know. >> > >> > Responses should be made by Wed Dec 6 16:00:27 UTC 2017. >> > Anything received after that time might be too late. >> > >> > The whole patch series can be found in one patch at: >> > kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/stable-review/patch-4.14.4-rc1.gz >> > or in the git tree and branch at: >> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-4.14.y >> > and the diffstat can be found below. >> > >> > thanks, >> > >> > greg k-h >> > >> >> Compiled, booted and ran the following package unit tests without regressions on x86_64 >> >> boringssl : >> go test target:0/0/5764/5764/5764 PASS >> ssl_test : 10 pass >> crypto_test : 28 pass >> e2fsprogs: >> make check : 340 pass >> sqlite >> make test : 143914 pass >> drm >> make check : 15 pass >> modetest, drmdevice : pass >> alsa-lib >> make check : 2 pass >> bluez >> make check : 25 pass >> libusb >> stress : 4 pass > > How do the above tests stress the kernel? Aren't they just > verifications that the source code in the package is correct? > > I guess it proves something, but have you ever seen the above regress in > _any_ kernel release? > > I know the drm developers have a huge test suite that they use to verify > their kernel changes, why not use that? Are you referring to the igt-gpu-tools [1]? They also have a CI [2] that runs these tests, but almost 98% of the tests are i915 specific / can be only tested on i915 for now. Though I have chatted with Daniel V a couple of times, and we do see a good scope of collaboration in getting these tested on ARM as well. Also, these are drm-specific tests, not testing generic kernel features per-se. Just my 2 cents here. > > thanks, > > greg k-h Best, Sumit [1]: https://cgit.freedesktop.org/drm/igt-gpu-tools [2]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org