On 03 Jul 2001 15:05:43 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 02:00:18PM -0700, sarnoldat_private wrote: > > I tend to > > think asking Linus and Alan to run './lsm-nothing-obviously-broken-tester' > > before making new point releases would be a useful thing. > > It would be up to the maintainer(s), not Alan or Linus to do this. They > are the responsible ones. OT: Well, I'd prefer to see lots of testers run the Linux stress and functional breadth tests on a nightly basis. If the test harness is done right, it should be really simple for average testers to get assigned test suites that are suited to their test machine's hardware and system configuration. Ideally, the tester would run a test launcher that would then query the tester to tweak test run options. Then, the test harness can collect a log of failures as well as test passes. If the tests OOPS the machine, the tester could collect the symbolic stack trace and then submit it to a central repository that tracks the test machine configuration as well as the test options that led to the crash. Miles _______________________________________________ linux-security-module mailing list linux-security-moduleat_private http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jul 04 2001 - 00:16:21 PDT