On 6 December 2017 at 21:03, Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 08:11:26PM +0530, Sumit Semwal wrote:
Hi Greg,
On 5 December 2017 at 11:54, Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org 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 gregkh@linuxfoundation.org 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.
Well, you all are testing x86 for the stable trees, right, why can't you run the i915 tests? :)
I'll check with the DRM guys, but my guess is the DRM framework itself is a very fast changing one, and the current i915 tests might not even apply for the stable kernels. :)
Also, these are drm-specific tests, not testing generic kernel features per-se. Just my 2 cents here.
drm-specific things _are_ part of the kernel api, right?
True that :)
By writing this, I did want to highlight that the 'large bucket' wasn't generic features, but a very driver-specific one right now.
thanks,
greg k-h