[LTP] [RFC PATCH 0/2] Document minimal supported LTP version

[LTP] [RFC PATCH 0/2] Document minimal supported LTP version

[Petr Vorel]

Petr Vorel (2):
  doc: State the minimal kernel version
  doc: Document used C standard

 doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt | 12 +++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

-- 
2.39.0


-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

[LTP] [RFC PATCH 1/2] doc: State the minimal kernel version

[Petr Vorel]

Because the tested version does not automatically mean the minimal
supported.

Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
---
Hi all,

I'm sorry to bother you, many of you concentrate on current mainline (or
supported stable) instead of digging into history. But you might know
about somebody who still cares about 3.x. Although not many of these
people would try to run recent LTP on these old versions, but we never
know.

I started with 3.0 as that was the result of the old discussions over
ML.  I'm perfectly ok, if we raise it to 3.10, which is tested.
I guess after CentOS 7 EOL we should raise support even higher.

The motivation is to state the version here, instead in
doc/c-test-api.txt
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/ltp/patch/1671166923-2173-7-git-send-email-xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com/

Also stating kernel version limits minimal libc version.
Thus I'm not going to start a discussion about what libc version we
support.

Kind regards,
Petr

 doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt | 7 ++++++-
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt b/doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt
index e48e3aeae3..f89c4882fb 100644
--- a/doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt
+++ b/doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt
@@ -51,7 +51,12 @@ distribution you may as well reconsider you life choices.
 | s390x         | cross compilation
 |==================================
 
-1.3 Supported libc
+1.3 Minimal supported kernel version
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Minimal supported (although untested) kernel version is 3.0.
+
+1.4 Supported libc
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
 [align="center",options="header"]
-- 
2.39.0


-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

[LTP] [RFC PATCH 2/2] doc: Document used C standard

[Petr Vorel]

which was added in dc7be30e25 ("config: Explicitly set gnu99")

Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
---
BTW I guess after CentOS 7 EOL we should raise std.

 doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt | 5 +++++
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)

diff --git a/doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt b/doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt
index f89c4882fb..b5f12962b2 100644
--- a/doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt
+++ b/doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt
@@ -70,3 +70,8 @@ Minimal supported (although untested) kernel version is 3.0.
                                  for list of files which need to be deleted in order to compile under musl).
 | binder (Android) | Please use https://android.googlesource.com/platform/external/ltp/[AOSP fork].
 |==================================
+
+1.5 Used C standard
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+LTP now compiles with '-std=gnu99'.
-- 
2.39.0


-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] [RFC PATCH 2/2] doc: Document used C standard

[xuyang2018.jy]

Hi Petr

> which was added in dc7be30e25 ("config: Explicitly set gnu99")
> 
> Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
> ---
> BTW I guess after CentOS 7 EOL we should raise std.
> 
>   doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt | 5 +++++
>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt b/doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt
> index f89c4882fb..b5f12962b2 100644
> --- a/doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt
> +++ b/doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt
> @@ -70,3 +70,8 @@ Minimal supported (although untested) kernel version is 3.0.
>                                    for list of files which need to be deleted in order to compile under musl).
>   | binder (Android) | Please use https://android.googlesource.com/platform/external/ltp/[AOSP fork].
>   |==================================
> +
> +1.5 Used C standard
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +
> +LTP now compiles with '-std=gnu99'.

For this patchset, You can add
Reviewed-by: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com>

Best Regards
Yang Xu

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] [RFC PATCH 1/2] doc: State the minimal kernel version

[Jan Stancek]

On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 10:46 AM Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> Because the tested version does not automatically mean the minimal
> supported.
>
> Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
> ---
> Hi all,
>
> I'm sorry to bother you, many of you concentrate on current mainline (or
> supported stable) instead of digging into history. But you might know
> about somebody who still cares about 3.x. Although not many of these
> people would try to run recent LTP on these old versions, but we never
> know.
>
> I started with 3.0 as that was the result of the old discussions over
> ML.  I'm perfectly ok, if we raise it to 3.10, which is tested.
> I guess after CentOS 7 EOL we should raise support even higher.

I'd be fine with raising it to 3.10, that still covers CentOS7 for now.
(3.10 will be 10 years old in couple months)

Acked-by: Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>

>
> The motivation is to state the version here, instead in
> doc/c-test-api.txt
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/ltp/patch/1671166923-2173-7-git-send-email-xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com/
>
> Also stating kernel version limits minimal libc version.
> Thus I'm not going to start a discussion about what libc version we
> support.
>
> Kind regards,
> Petr
>
>  doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt | 7 ++++++-
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt b/doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt
> index e48e3aeae3..f89c4882fb 100644
> --- a/doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt
> +++ b/doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt
> @@ -51,7 +51,12 @@ distribution you may as well reconsider you life choices.
>  | s390x         | cross compilation
>  |==================================
>
> -1.3 Supported libc
> +1.3 Minimal supported kernel version
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +
> +Minimal supported (although untested) kernel version is 3.0.
> +
> +1.4 Supported libc
>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>  [align="center",options="header"]
> --
> 2.39.0
>


-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] [RFC PATCH 0/2] Document minimal supported LTP version

[Richard Palethorpe]

Hello,

Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> writes:

> Petr Vorel (2):
>   doc: State the minimal kernel version
>   doc: Document used C standard
>
>  doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt | 12 +++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Acked-by: Richard Palethorpe <rpalethorpe@suse.com>

-- 
Thank you,
Richard.

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] [RFC PATCH 1/2] doc: State the minimal kernel version

[Khem Raj]

On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 1:46 AM Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> Because the tested version does not automatically mean the minimal
> supported.
>
> Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
> ---
> Hi all,
>
> I'm sorry to bother you, many of you concentrate on current mainline (or
> supported stable) instead of digging into history. But you might know
> about somebody who still cares about 3.x. Although not many of these
> people would try to run recent LTP on these old versions, but we never
> know.
>
> I started with 3.0 as that was the result of the old discussions over
> ML.  I'm perfectly ok, if we raise it to 3.10, which is tested.
> I guess after CentOS 7 EOL we should raise support even higher.
>
> The motivation is to state the version here, instead in
> doc/c-test-api.txt
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/ltp/patch/1671166923-2173-7-git-send-email-xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com/
>
> Also stating kernel version limits minimal libc version.
> Thus I'm not going to start a discussion about what libc version we
> support.
>
> Kind regards,
> Petr
>
>  doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt | 7 ++++++-
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt b/doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt
> index e48e3aeae3..f89c4882fb 100644
> --- a/doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt
> +++ b/doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt
> @@ -51,7 +51,12 @@ distribution you may as well reconsider you life choices.
>  | s390x         | cross compilation
>  |==================================
>
> -1.3 Supported libc
> +1.3 Minimal supported kernel version
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +
> +Minimal supported (although untested) kernel version is 3.0.
> +
> +1.4 Supported libc

LGTM

Acked-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>

>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>  [align="center",options="header"]
> --
> 2.39.0
>

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] [RFC PATCH 1/2] doc: State the minimal kernel version

[Li Wang]

On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 5:52 PM Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 10:46 AM Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> wrote:
> >
> > Because the tested version does not automatically mean the minimal
> > supported.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
> > ---
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm sorry to bother you, many of you concentrate on current mainline (or
> > supported stable) instead of digging into history. But you might know
> > about somebody who still cares about 3.x. Although not many of these
> > people would try to run recent LTP on these old versions, but we never
> > know.
> >
> > I started with 3.0 as that was the result of the old discussions over
> > ML.  I'm perfectly ok, if we raise it to 3.10, which is tested.
> > I guess after CentOS 7 EOL we should raise support even higher.
>
> I'd be fine with raising it to 3.10, that still covers CentOS7 for now.
> (3.10 will be 10 years old in couple months)
>

+1 that's exactly!

Reviewed-by: Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com>


>
> Acked-by: Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>
>
> >
> > The motivation is to state the version here, instead in
> > doc/c-test-api.txt
> >
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/ltp/patch/1671166923-2173-7-git-send-email-xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com/
> >
> > Also stating kernel version limits minimal libc version.
> > Thus I'm not going to start a discussion about what libc version we
> > support.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Petr
> >
> >  doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt | 7 ++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt
> b/doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt
> > index e48e3aeae3..f89c4882fb 100644
> > --- a/doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt
> > +++ b/doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt
> > @@ -51,7 +51,12 @@ distribution you may as well reconsider you life
> choices.
> >  | s390x         | cross compilation
> >  |==================================
> >
> > -1.3 Supported libc
> > +1.3 Minimal supported kernel version
> > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > +
> > +Minimal supported (although untested) kernel version is 3.0.
> > +
> > +1.4 Supported libc
> >  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >  [align="center",options="header"]
> > --
> > 2.39.0
> >
>
>

-- 
Regards,
Li Wang

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] [RFC PATCH 2/2] doc: Document used C standard

[Li Wang]

On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 5:46 PM Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> wrote:

> which was added in dc7be30e25 ("config: Explicitly set gnu99")
>
> Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
>

Reviewed-by: Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com>


> ---
> BTW I guess after CentOS 7 EOL we should raise std.
>
>  doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt | 5 +++++
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt
> b/doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt
> index f89c4882fb..b5f12962b2 100644
> --- a/doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt
> +++ b/doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt
> @@ -70,3 +70,8 @@ Minimal supported (although untested) kernel version is
> 3.0.
>                                   for list of files which need to be
> deleted in order to compile under musl).
>  | binder (Android) | Please use
> https://android.googlesource.com/platform/external/ltp/[AOSP fork].
>  |==================================
> +
> +1.5 Used C standard
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +
> +LTP now compiles with '-std=gnu99'.
> --
> 2.39.0
>
>

-- 
Regards,
Li Wang

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] [RFC PATCH 1/2] doc: State the minimal kernel version

[Petr Vorel]

> On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 5:52 PM Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com> wrote:

> > On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 10:46 AM Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> wrote:

> > > Because the tested version does not automatically mean the minimal
> > > supported.

> > > Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
> > > ---
> > > Hi all,

> > > I'm sorry to bother you, many of you concentrate on current mainline (or
> > > supported stable) instead of digging into history. But you might know
> > > about somebody who still cares about 3.x. Although not many of these
> > > people would try to run recent LTP on these old versions, but we never
> > > know.

> > > I started with 3.0 as that was the result of the old discussions over
> > > ML.  I'm perfectly ok, if we raise it to 3.10, which is tested.
> > > I guess after CentOS 7 EOL we should raise support even higher.

> > I'd be fine with raising it to 3.10, that still covers CentOS7 for now.
> > (3.10 will be 10 years old in couple months)


> +1 that's exactly!

OK, is anybody against raising the support to 3.10?

If not, I can change it:

-Minimal supported (although untested) kernel version is 3.0.
+Minimal supported kernel version is 3.10.

Kind regards,
Petr

> Reviewed-by: Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com>



> > Acked-by: Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>


> > > The motivation is to state the version here, instead in
> > > doc/c-test-api.txt

> > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/ltp/patch/1671166923-2173-7-git-send-email-xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com/

> > > Also stating kernel version limits minimal libc version.
> > > Thus I'm not going to start a discussion about what libc version we
> > > support.

> > > Kind regards,
> > > Petr

> > >  doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt | 7 ++++++-
> > >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

> > > diff --git a/doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt
> > b/doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt
> > > index e48e3aeae3..f89c4882fb 100644
> > > --- a/doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt
> > > +++ b/doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt
> > > @@ -51,7 +51,12 @@ distribution you may as well reconsider you life
> > choices.
> > >  | s390x         | cross compilation
> > >  |==================================

> > > -1.3 Supported libc
> > > +1.3 Minimal supported kernel version
> > > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > +
> > > +Minimal supported (although untested) kernel version is 3.0.
> > > +
> > > +1.4 Supported libc
> > >  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> > >  [align="center",options="header"]
> > > --
> > > 2.39.0

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] [RFC PATCH 1/2] doc: State the minimal kernel version

[Richard Purdie]

On Tue, 2022-12-20 at 12:19 +0100, Petr Vorel wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 5:52 PM Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>
> > wrote:
> 
> > > On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 10:46 AM Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
> > > wrote:
> 
> > > > Because the tested version does not automatically mean the
> > > > minimal
> > > > supported.
> 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
> > > > ---
> > > > Hi all,
> 
> > > > I'm sorry to bother you, many of you concentrate on current
> > > > mainline (or
> > > > supported stable) instead of digging into history. But you
> > > > might know
> > > > about somebody who still cares about 3.x. Although not many of
> > > > these
> > > > people would try to run recent LTP on these old versions, but
> > > > we never
> > > > know.
> 
> > > > I started with 3.0 as that was the result of the old
> > > > discussions over
> > > > ML.  I'm perfectly ok, if we raise it to 3.10, which is tested.
> > > > I guess after CentOS 7 EOL we should raise support even higher.
> 
> > > I'd be fine with raising it to 3.10, that still covers CentOS7
> > > for now.
> > > (3.10 will be 10 years old in couple months)
> 
> 
> > +1 that's exactly!
> 
> OK, is anybody against raising the support to 3.10?
> 
> If not, I can change it:
> 
> -Minimal supported (although untested) kernel version is 3.0.
> +Minimal supported kernel version is 3.10.

Fine with me FWIW.

Cheers,

Richard

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp