Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Better Test Those Kernel Patches

Posted by timothy on from the tools-for-coders dept.

alanjstr writes: "eWeek reports that 'The Open Source Development Lab has created a code benchmarking tool--known as the Scalable Test Platform--that it says will allow developers to easily test their Linux kernel patches from a variety of tests and server configurations.' It is intended for centralized performance testing." OSDL is sponsored by a lot of companies, including VA Linux, parent company of OSDN and Slashdot.

18 comments

  1. It is but by JohnHegarty · · Score: 0

    It is , but you can "recompile" it ... if your into that kinda thing

    --
    Cruise TT
  2. No, Windows doesn't do such testing? by sperling · · Score: 1
    Although I'm the first to agree Windows often appear rather, well, untested, I actually do believe that the MS developers at least boot their OSes on a few different setups before they put it on the CDs too many pay too much for.

    The idea of that lab is, as the text you hopefully read claimed, to "allow developers to easily test their Linux kernel patches". Good Thing! (tm)

    --
    The next great MMORPG.
    1. Re:No, Windows doesn't do such testing? by (startx) · · Score: 1

      Actually, I've got a friend who works at redmond (I know, evil...yadayadayada), and he said that they were running the nightly xp builds on every single machine in his building for the last couple of months leading up to build 2600 (yes, they did it on purpose).

    2. Re:No, Windows doesn't do such testing? by Error27 · · Score: 2

      I would imagine microsoft tests their software thouroughly. Who told you that they didn't?

    3. Re:No, Windows doesn't do such testing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As if a fancy build number would save them....
      Micro$oft, somewhat of power WITH the price.

    4. Re:No, Windows doesn't do such testing? by sperling · · Score: 1
      I'll tag with SARCASM next time ;)

      A now -1 moderated post claimed "Windows doesn't need this kind of testing" so I merely pointed out it actually needs and obviously gets a lot of testing, and that this lab wasn't for end users but for developers.

      --
      The next great MMORPG.
    5. Re:No, Windows doesn't do such testing? by dodald · · Score: 1

      Nice Cover.

      --
      101010b 2Ah 52o
    6. Re:No, Windows doesn't do such testing? by Error27 · · Score: 1

      I recognized that you were upset about something... The thing I couldn't see is what you were talking about. It wasn't altogether clear because you replied to the story instead of the comment.

      Thanks for clarification.

  3. Don't just TEST your new kernel. by DavidJA · · Score: 1

    If you are a true linux dude (like me) you will read over the source line by line. Afterall, thats why god gave us the GPL

    1. Re:Don't just TEST your new kernel. by q-soe · · Score: 2

      Whilst i agree with the real programmers analogy (i can read source) the whole point of linux is an alternative to windows for all users i thought, if that is to be said then dont we need a little bit more documentation and testing than reading the source code ?

      Arent we supposed to be making this stuff easier for the average user ?

      With respect (an IMHO) i thought this sort of attitude and comment was a thing of the past and died with the maturation of Unix ?

      --
      I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
    2. Re:Don't just TEST your new kernel. by duffbeer703 · · Score: 3, Funny

      This is Slashdot you fool.

      Who needs documentation??? Just read the source and pretend like you know what you are doing!

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    3. Re:Don't just TEST your new kernel. by RadioheadKid · · Score: 1

      Hah, that's funny...but in regards to the top level comment, it's that type of attitude that scares people away from linux. You don't need to know C to apply patches and compile the kernel. And furthermore, most maintainers would be more than happy to entertain resonable bug reports, and most likely will help you get more information if need be.

      KidA

      --
      "Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." -Homer Simpson
    4. Re:Don't just TEST your new kernel. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FSF gave you GPL, "god" had nothing to do with it.

    5. Re:Don't just TEST your new kernel. by barzok · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the way RMS acts, it's easily confused.

    6. Re:Don't just TEST your new kernel. by Dwonis · · Score: 2

      The Church of Emacs is not to be confused with the GPL.

  4. Nice step, but we need more by RadioheadKid · · Score: 1

    I think this is a great step in the right direction, but unfortunately most kernel changes and additions are to drivers in the kernel, not the core kernel components. Many times it happens that the driver for device x gets broken in kernel revision y. This isn't because the driver developer was slacking off, each developer only has a limited amount of hardware he or she can test it on.

    Granted that's why there's the whole "pre" patch testing process and I'm sure the OSDL will have a nice selection of hardware, but it sounds like they're more focused on core kernel develop, which is great, but if enough people don't test the drivers the problems can't be found and unfortunately Alan Cox has a limited amount of space in his house. He can't keep every possible configuration, so we all need to try and test those kernels more, I know I too am guilty of not trying out enough patches, but we can all do more to make this kernel even better.

    KidA

    --
    "Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." -Homer Simpson