Hi,
So over the last couple of days I have been looking into the test suites we currently have available in the leg-kernel CI/test cycle and come to the following conclusions.
1) aapits - tests the core of the acpica code, does not test anything in the kernel or the BIOS. Is unmaintained by acpica folks and Tomasz patches have sat idle on bug tracker for 3/4 of a year. This test suite does not test anything we are interested in I propose we drop it from CI.
2) acpica-tools - tests the iasl compiler, is run on every tools packaging for rpm/deb. I suggest the tools CI/packaging cycles are a better location for these tests and we drop them from CI
3) acpi-smoke-test - This is the basic test that we booted from ACPI, I think this is useful to keep as a quick getout of testing if it fails.
4) FWTS - current target of our testing for BIOS testing. This we keep.
So I am suggesting we only have tests that exercise the kernel or BIOS in some manner. We are still lacking in tests that exercise the kernel but I have no idea what these tests should be at current time.
Thanks
Graeme
Hi Graeme,
On 26 November 2014 at 09:44, G Gregory graeme.gregory@linaro.org wrote:
Hi,
So over the last couple of days I have been looking into the test suites we currently have available in the leg-kernel CI/test cycle and come to the following conclusions.
- aapits - tests the core of the acpica code, does not test anything
in the kernel or the BIOS. Is unmaintained by acpica folks and Tomasz patches have sat idle on bug tracker for 3/4 of a year. This test suite does not test anything we are interested in I propose we drop it from CI.
- acpica-tools - tests the iasl compiler, is run on every tools
packaging for rpm/deb. I suggest the tools CI/packaging cycles are a better location for these tests and we drop them from CI
- acpi-smoke-test - This is the basic test that we booted from ACPI,
I think this is useful to keep as a quick getout of testing if it fails.
- FWTS - current target of our testing for BIOS testing. This we keep.
So I am suggesting we only have tests that exercise the kernel or BIOS
I agree on your suggestion to focus on points #3 and #4.
in some manner. We are still lacking in tests that exercise the kernel but I have no idea what these tests should be at current time.
I would anyway turn your very last sentence into a constructive one and suggest to add those tests from the Ubuntu image that Mark Brown is running on LSK. Specifically, if it makes sense (excerpt from his doc):
++++++++++++
Basic smoke tests ==============
Purpose:
Validate that basic command line tools work properly
Steps:
Expected outcome is that the program exit code is 0
pwd
uname -a
vmstat
ifconfig -a
lscpu
lsusb
lsb_release -a
Basic networking tests =================
Purpose:
Validate that basic wired networking works well
Steps:
Expected outcome is that the program exit code is 0
netstat -an
ifconfig -a
route
ifconfig lo up
route
ifconfig eth0 up
ifconfig eth0 down
dhclient -v eth0
route
ping -c 5 192.168.1.10
apt-get update
apt-get install -q -y curl
curl -x http://192.168.1.10:3128 http://samplemedia.linaro.org/MPEG4/big_buck_bunny_720p_MPEG4_MP3_25fps_3300...
/dev/null
**** maybe we can skip the video playback, we are not concerned by tablet/mobile :-)
LTP ===
Linux test project description can be found at http://ltp.sourceforge.net/
Purpose:
Verify that the syscalls work properly
Steps:
Download latest LTP sources (currently ltp-full-20130503)
Build the sources on the target device
Run tests: ./runltp -f syscalls -p -q
+++++++
Would this help increase confidence on the ACPI kernel for ARM?
which subset would you recommend?
Thanks
Graeme
thanks!
Andrea
On 11/26/2014 01:44 AM, G Gregory wrote:
Hi,
So over the last couple of days I have been looking into the test suites we currently have available in the leg-kernel CI/test cycle and come to the following conclusions.
- aapits - tests the core of the acpica code, does not test anything
in the kernel or the BIOS. Is unmaintained by acpica folks and Tomasz patches have sat idle on bug tracker for 3/4 of a year. This test suite does not test anything we are interested in I propose we drop it from CI.
Minor clarification: this gets run when acpica-tools packages get updated, too. But agreed, it is just an ACPICA API test and it only run from user space.
- acpica-tools - tests the iasl compiler, is run on every tools
packaging for rpm/deb. I suggest the tools CI/packaging cycles are a better location for these tests and we drop them from CI
- acpi-smoke-test - This is the basic test that we booted from ACPI,
I think this is useful to keep as a quick getout of testing if it fails.
- FWTS - current target of our testing for BIOS testing. This we keep.
So I am suggesting we only have tests that exercise the kernel or BIOS in some manner. We are still lacking in tests that exercise the kernel but I have no idea what these tests should be at current time.
Agreed. And many, many thanks for looking into this and cleaning it up....
On 26.11.2014 17:27, Al Stone wrote:
On 11/26/2014 01:44 AM, G Gregory wrote:
Hi,
So over the last couple of days I have been looking into the test suites we currently have available in the leg-kernel CI/test cycle and come to the following conclusions.
- aapits - tests the core of the acpica code, does not test anything
in the kernel or the BIOS. Is unmaintained by acpica folks and Tomasz patches have sat idle on bug tracker for 3/4 of a year. This test suite does not test anything we are interested in I propose we drop it from CI.
Minor clarification: this gets run when acpica-tools packages get updated, too. But agreed, it is just an ACPICA API test and it only run from user space.
+1
- acpica-tools - tests the iasl compiler, is run on every tools
packaging for rpm/deb. I suggest the tools CI/packaging cycles are a better location for these tests and we drop them from CI
- acpi-smoke-test - This is the basic test that we booted from ACPI,
I think this is useful to keep as a quick getout of testing if it fails.
- FWTS - current target of our testing for BIOS testing. This we keep.
So I am suggesting we only have tests that exercise the kernel or BIOS in some manner. We are still lacking in tests that exercise the kernel but I have no idea what these tests should be at current time.
Agreed. And many, many thanks for looking into this and cleaning it up....