[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110812170958.GA18363@turtle.usersys.redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 19:09:58 +0200
From: Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/10] ktest: Introduce PASS_COUNT
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:49:45PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-08-12 at 15:32 +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > Add another config variable that defines the number of times a test
> > must pass before it really passes. This is good for boot tests, where
> > the failure doesn't occur every time.
>
> I'm curious to how this is really different than the ITERATE keyword.
>
> That is, if we had:
>
> TEST_START ITERATE 10
> TEST_TYPE = test
> TEST = ssh root@box "/work/runtest"
>
> Hmm, is this to help in the bisects?
Right. I played with ITERATE, but it didn't look like it would work
for bisecting boot problems that may fail once in some number of
boots. Perhaps I missed something though.
>
> Maybe it should be called ITERATE as well, just to be consistent.
>
> TEST_START
> TEST_TYPE = bisect
> ITERATE = 10
>
> ??
>
> Or maybe that is confusing too, as that could be used to do the iterate
> within the TEST_START (hmm, I may add that).
>
> How about PASS_THRESHOLD? or PASS_COUNT_THRESHOLD? As I think that may
> be more descriptive.
PASS_THRESHOLD sounds good. Should I respin with that change now? Or are
you still considering a different design?
>
> /me rereads his email and sees that he has a tendency to talk to
> himself.
>
/me wonders if he answered himself with a different design idea, so will
hold off on the updated patch for the moment.
Drew
>
> -- Steve
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists