Reducing Regression Test suite: LTP

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 14/10/2021 19:10, Po-Hsu Lin wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 11:26 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski at canonical.com> wrote:
>>
>>
> 
> Hello,
> I am here to resurrecting this thread to gather some input for our
> recent LTP test changes:
> 
> 1. We're now using our own fork: https://kernel.ubuntu.com/git/ubuntu/ltp.git
> The idea is to take pending review patches as local SAUCE patches,
> which we don't have any for the moment (except my update notes) as all
> of them are accepted upstream \o/
> For future updates, I am not sure if we should follow their release
> policy - it appears to be once for every 4 months. Or if we can do the
> update for maybe every 2 or 3 SRU cycles?

I would stay with their cycle which is also less frequent updates.
Bigger chance we will got something more stable.

> 
> 2. We have the controllers subset separated from ubuntu_ltp as
> ubuntu_ltp_controllers
> This makes it easier to hint, and a bit more "browser friendly" as the
> report is not *that* lengthy when running almost everything together.
> And with Krzysztof's hard work, this test is not that stink as it was.
> If no objections, my plan is to split more failing subset out of
> ubuntu_ltp (e.g. kernel_misc, fs) to improve our hinting quality. With
> more LTP sub-tests break down into smaller pieces we can rethink if we
> want to adjust our test plan for derivative kernels.
> 
> I will be adjusting the tests in ubuntu_ltp_stable too to move failing
> pty (lp:1922819) sched (lp:1931325) test out to make sure it's green.
> 
> Also, we're not running ubuntu_ltp_syscalls test on generic kernels on
> baremetals nor on cloud instances. Base on the discussion above I
> think this should be added.

Or even move ltp_syscalls to generic kernels only and skip them on cloud
derivatives?


Best regards,
Krzysztof