From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37A21C433EF for ; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 14:10:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id B083F3C92A8 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 15:10:51 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-6.smtp.seeweb.it (in-6.smtp.seeweb.it [217.194.8.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F9A53C0CF0 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 15:10:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-6.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86C27140017A for ; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 15:10:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4C6D1F388; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 14:10:40 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1640095840; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=AC15MEyZXQmNJovu/yFkYwOCfsauiW4tZp3ZyxIbHag=; b=Y22N1apK/CzroS+R0dhYPUyLGs0fwo8cmHo7ItQgvSL9g4mScGVonLc6JRh2iKGnqycJRV dGxyNKhqGOe9J7NhDdLwTDNJWS26Gw2oSUFXrOVjyFr0X2AEU4THnFM+f3ZFswFeTjTTNb t7tumL194jwSlKQ9cWVwqL8YHqBB1x0= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1640095840; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=AC15MEyZXQmNJovu/yFkYwOCfsauiW4tZp3ZyxIbHag=; b=7Vp9O5vMp4F6VTVeFp7AXsVzV41JizJlwWZMvKjiUVWCevtnKSx4PONqS3FhSy3MzfkIQ3 jDmNKgMe0zfheDAA== Received: from g78 (unknown [10.163.24.42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AD1FA3B83; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 14:10:40 +0000 (UTC) References: <20211220180748.36A90A3B8E@relay2.suse.de> <20211221113042.21357-1-rpalethorpe@suse.com> User-agent: mu4e 1.6.9; emacs 27.2 From: Richard Palethorpe To: Li Wang Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2021 13:56:12 +0000 In-reply-to: Message-ID: <875yrif3qd.fsf@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.4 at in-6.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [RFC PATCH] API: Allow testing of kernel features in development X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: rpalethorpe@suse.de Cc: LTP List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" Hello Li, Li Wang writes: > Hi Richard, > > On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 7:31 PM Richard Palethorpe via ltp > wrote: >> >> Add an unstable kernel ABI flag and a runtest file for unstable >> tests. This means we can add tests which are likely to be broken by >> changes in the kernel ABI. Without disrupting LTP releases which are >> required to be stable. >> >> Users who require stability can filter the tests with this flag >> or not schedule the unstable runtest file(s). >> >> Signed-off-by: Richard Palethorpe >> --- >> >> How about adding this to the fanotify22 patch? >> >> include/tst_test.h | 12 ++++++++++++ >> lib/tst_test.c | 6 ++++++ >> runtest/syscalls-unstable | 3 +++ >> 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 runtest/syscalls-unstable >> >> diff --git a/include/tst_test.h b/include/tst_test.h >> index 450ddf086..ff31e972e 100644 >> --- a/include/tst_test.h >> +++ b/include/tst_test.h >> @@ -174,6 +174,18 @@ struct tst_test { >> int skip_in_lockdown:1; >> int skip_in_compat:1; >> >> + /* >> + * Test is for a feature that has not been added to the stable >> + * kernel ABI. That is, it's for a feature only available in >> + * linux-next, an RC or some other development branch. >> + * >> + * This string should be set to some text describing the >> + * kernel branch and version the test was developed >> + * against. e.g. "5.16 RC2", "linux-next-20211220", >> + * "net-next". >> + */ >> + const char *const unstable_abi_version; > > I'm not sure if this will bring convenience or trouble to LTP. > > If a new syscall is in development (or merged in linux-next) but > drop/change in mainline-kernel. We have to adjust the test case > accordingly. If someone is motivated enough to contribute tests for an unreleased feature. There is a high chance they will make the changes. In the worst case we just delete the test. > > And after the feature is go into the mainline kernel finally, should > we move that from 'syscalls-unstable' to 'syscalls' and remove the > tst_test->unstable_abi_version field at the same time? Yes. > > Btw, why not we just keep the unstable-syscall test case stay > in the review phase until it gets merged in mailline-kernel? > I guess that wouldn't block anything or make anyone unhappy. It's a lot of work to merge patches into your own branch for testing RCs and linux-next. It makes collaboration a lot harder. It's easy for people just to enable the unstable tests. Then new features will get tested on a much wider range of setups. It increases the chances of finding bugs before release. -- Thank you, Richard. -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp