On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 7:43 PM, Masatake YAMATO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 2.5) LTP should start focusing on IN-KERNEL-API testing, basically >> testing the API´s which are available only inside the kernel. > > Comparing with system calls, I think IN-KERNEL-API has much chances to > be tested well tested by the other kernel code. So the bug newly > injected to IN-KERNEL-API-IMPLEMENTATION will be found quickly. In > addition such APIs will be changed quickly. It means test cases for > usch API becomes garbage quickly. > > I think it will be more fruity if LTP people look at > OUTSIDE-KERNEL-BEHAVIOR with using kvm(or other vitalization > technologies) ; e.g. we can conduct a test kernel behavior when > plugging a usb device to a computer. > > Masatake YAMATO
Whitebox testing is a must because chasing down issues with blackbox tests becomes annoying sometimes, and more importantly code coverage can be lower than desired with blackbox tests. "Graybox" testing (if I understand my manager's use of the term correctly) is the majority of what LTP does nowadays though (only selectively works API's which are unmasked to end users)... How deep you want to dig into the rabbit hole is up to you as a test writer with your unit tests, but the level of functional testing done and the coverage attempted without being tied too much to a given arch or device or non-common feature-anchored set of API's is fairly substantial compared to other opensource test suites. -Garrett ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
