On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 05:03:15PM +0100, James Sutherland wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, David Mansfield wrote:
> > Ideally, in the case where something bad but not as fatal as complete
> > lockup happens, the test bed should diagnose the fault. This could be
> > capturing the oops, or running ps -alx to see where it's stuck.
>
> Yep. Using a serial console should enable reasonable information capture,
> and the script can have a standard set of "failure responses" to run if a
> test returns a failure of any sort?
While I definately want to support serial consoles and network logging
for large testing environments (like product testing), I also want LTP
to work on a single system environment. I think that's important to
have for the average Linux hacker. If Joe User finds a problem with in
the kernel I want him to be able to run LTP on his box to get detailed
testing information that someone else can analyze and use to solve the
problem.
> > In all the cases where I've tested the kernel, it has been a matter of
> > 'Here is the test which crashes the kernel, let's see if it crashes this
> > one, too' and I just want to throw this into the consideration of how to
> > best create a test harness.
>
> Indeed. The other question is, how to handle deadlocks? I'd probably use a
> serial console, being logged by another machine; if the machine dies, just
> reboot, then have the machine resume testing where it left off.
That would be the easy case. How do you reboot a locked machine over a
serial console?
Nate
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 15 2000 - 21:00:22 EST