Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757027AbYG1PLr (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:11:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752368AbYG1PLj (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:11:39 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:56019 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752554AbYG1PLj (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:11:39 -0400 Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 17:11:23 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Rusty Russell Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: fix pte_flags() to only return flags, fix lguest (updated) Message-ID: <20080728151122.GE32111@elte.hu> References: <200807221431.58991.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> <200807231059.20810.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> <20080724113122.GB23262@elte.hu> <200807251155.49606.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200807251155.49606.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3401 Lines: 69 * Rusty Russell wrote: > On Thursday 24 July 2008 21:31:22 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Rusty Russell wrote: > > > On Tuesday 22 July 2008 19:04:32 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > i'm wondering. My randconfig tests boot up an lguest enabled kernel > > > > every 30 minutes or so: > > > > > > > > config-Mon_Jul_21_19_05_54_CEST_2008.good:CONFIG_LGUEST=y > > > > config-Mon_Jul_21_19_43_13_CEST_2008.good:CONFIG_LGUEST=y > > > > config-Mon_Jul_21_19_47_40_CEST_2008.good:CONFIG_LGUEST=y > > > > config-Mon_Jul_21_20_37_41_CEST_2008.good:CONFIG_LGUEST=y > > > > config-Mon_Jul_21_22_11_42_CEST_2008.good:CONFIG_LGUEST=y > > > > config-Mon_Jul_21_22_16_59_CEST_2008.good:CONFIG_LGUEST=y > > > > config-Mon_Jul_21_22_32_22_CEST_2008.good:CONFIG_LGUEST=y > > > > config-Mon_Jul_21_23_25_55_CEST_2008.good:CONFIG_LGUEST=y > > > > config-Mon_Jul_21_23_51_29_CEST_2008.good:CONFIG_LGUEST=y > > > > > > > > Would it be possible to have some really stupid lguest self-test which > > > > would complain spectacularly in the host kernel if it fails to reach > > > > some minimal user-space? > > > > > > > > Something that could be self-contained within a single bzImage. (i.e. > > > > it would contain a minimalistic image of some sort with a very > > > > minimalistic userspace component as well - or something like that) > > > > > > Well, adding "make -C Documentation/lguest" to the build is a good start > > > (this finds those "e820.h not longer includable from userspace" bugs). > > > > > > Secondly, if you put the resulting Documentation/lguest/lguest somewhere > > > on your booting test machine, it can just do something like > > > > > > ./lguest 64 /boot/vmlinuz-`uname -r` | grep 'VFS: Unable to mount root' > > > > stupid question: what's the easiest way to filter out the case where > > there's not sufficient kernel support in the bzImage to actually run > > lguest? > > > > I.e. if i extend the "is this bzImage working fine" check with the above > > lguest bootup test - with the expectation of it getting down to the > > "VFS: Unable to mount root" message [success case], how do i filter out > > the case where it doesnt get to that message not due to some lguest > > breakage, but because there's not enough lguest support there. > > Easiest to check config: CONFIG_LGUEST and CONFIG_LGUEST_GUEST. > > Well, there may be no host-for-lguest support, modular or builtin. > "modprobe lg" to be sure, then if lguest says: "lguest: Failed to open > /dev/lguest: No such file or directory" your host doesn't support it. > > If there's no guest support, it's trickier. The boot will fail in > some non-obvious way depending on config options.... that's why i'm lazily relying on in-kernel tests as much as possible. Within the kernel we always know whether it's OK. Could we load an lguest test-image via the firmware loader or something? That would make automated testing really, really self-contained. plus "make Documentation/lguest/" could be bound into the random-testing environment as well. Would be glad to test-drive patches (even if just half-cooked), if you send any ... Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/