Re: [LTP] Towards 4.14 LTS

Hi! > For instance 4.13-rc just was added to the mix. > > For test buckets, I???m currently dorking around with some make check targets > for a few interesting packages. You may want to look into xfstests as well, we found a few kernel oopses recently related to backported FS patches for SLES

Re: [LTP] Towards 4.14 LTS

Hi! > For instance 4.13-rc just was added to the mix. > > For test buckets, I???m currently dorking around with some make check targets > for a few interesting packages. You may want to look into xfstests as well, we found a few kernel oopses recently related to backported FS patches for SLES

Re: [LTP] Towards 4.14 LTS

> On Nov 20, 2017, at 10:10 AM, Cyril Hrubis 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

Re: [LTP] Towards 4.14 LTS

> On Nov 20, 2017, at 10:10 AM, Cyril Hrubis 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

Re: [LTP] Towards 4.14 LTS

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

Re: [LTP] Towards 4.14 LTS

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