lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [LTP] Towards 4.14 LTS
From
Date


> On Nov 20, 2017, at 10:10 AM, Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>> So why didn???t we report these? As mentioned we???ve been tossing out dodgy
>> test cases to get to a clean baseline. We don???t need or want noise.
>>
>> For LTS, I want the system when it detects a failure to enable a quick
>> bisect involving the affected test bucket. Given the nature of kernel
>> bugs tho, there is that class of bug which only happens occasionally.
>
> From my experience debugging kernel bugs requires an actuall human
> interaction and there is only certain level of automation that can be
> achieved. Don't take me wrong, automatic bisection and other bells and
> whistles are a nice to have, but at the end of the day you usually need
> someone to reproduce/look at the problem, possibly check the source
> code, report a bug, etc. Hence it does not make much sense to have an
> automated system without dedicated engineers assigned to review the test
> results.

You are entirely right automation only gets so far. We have a few lines
of defense that probably are worth a mention.

1) infra - sometimes results/runs need to be re-run for whatever reason.
2) triage - Crappy test case or something that is real?
3) kernel - bisecting etc

We don’t have huge dedicated teams for each category but likewise each
has a team.

> --
> Cyril Hrubis
> chrubis@suse.cz

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-20 17:49    [W:0.083 / U:0.576 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site