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

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

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?  Aren't they just
verifications that the source code in the package is correct?

I guess it proves something, but have you ever seen the above regress in
_any_ kernel release?

I know the drm developers have a huge test suite that they use to verify
their kernel changes, why not use that?

thanks,

greg k-h