Re: [PATCH 4.14 00/95] 4.14.4-stable review

[Tom Gall]

> On Dec 6, 2017, at 12:49 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 donât really 
>> do much thatâs particularly interesting save to the package itself.
> 
> Then why run those tests?  Like sqlite, what kernel functionality does
> that exercise that ltp does not?

Simply it beats on the system. 

>> There are sometimes an interesting subset that drives some amount of work in kernel. 
>> Thatâs 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?

Dunno. Canât comment on the non-action by others. What we can do is either
harvest (by adding to say LTP) or improve in the 

> 
>> Take bluez, and itâs 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 thereâs some useful subset, thatâs what Iâm 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?  :)

Like you, I only care things that are testing the kernel. Iâm lazy.  Iâm not
chopping out the things that go far afield, besides itâs not broken nor is it
hurting anything.

> 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.

Yup entirely agree. No emerge world going on here. 8-b

> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h