Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 07:49:49 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Tom Gall <tom.gall@linaro.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
        shuahkh@osg.samsung.com, patches@kernelci.org,
        ben.hutchings@codethink.co.uk, lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org,
        linux- stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.14 00/95] 4.14.4-stable review
Message-ID: <20171206064949.GA23076@kroah.com>
References: <20171204160046.206920966@linuxfoundation.org>
 <33A49DC6-C9D0-4C76-BCA4-BA1A90C42507@linaro.org>
 <20171205062434.GA2297@kroah.com>
 <A3505F55-9E3A-4DBB-AF97-396A5AA51C14@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <A3505F55-9E3A-4DBB-AF97-396A5AA51C14@linaro.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2941
Lines: 90

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 03:45:07PM -0600, Tom Gall wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Dec 5, 2017, at 12:24 AM, 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?
> 
> Depends entirely on the package in question.
> 
> Sure, of completely no surprise a lot of package unit tests don’t really 
> do much that’s particularly interesting save to the package itself.

Then why run those tests?  Like sqlite, what kernel functionality does
that exercise that ltp does not?

> There are sometimes an interesting subset that drives some amount of work in kernel. 
> That’s the useful stuff.

Is that true with the above list?  If so, why are those types of tests
not part of any kernel test suite that I have seen before?

> Take bluez, and it’s use of CONFIG_CRYPTO_USER_API.  

Nice, does that cover things that is not in LTP?  Should those tests be
added to LTP?

> >  Aren't they just
> > verifications that the source code in the package is correct?
> 
> So if there’s some useful subset, that’s what I’m looking for.
> 
> > I guess it proves something, but have you ever seen the above regress in
> > _any_ kernel release?
> 
> Past regressions make for a good test. 

You are testing past regressions of the userspace code, not the kernel
here.  Why do I care about that?  :)

Don't fall down the trap of running code for the sake of running code
(i.e. like that web site that starts with a P) that doesn't actually
test anything that actually matters.

thanks,

greg k-h