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 6DC21C433F5 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 2021 09:30:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C9F93C9262 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 2021 10:29:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-7.smtp.seeweb.it (in-7.smtp.seeweb.it [217.194.8.7]) (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 picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FA2E3C0B90 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 2021 10:29:49 +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-7.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D130B200AD9 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 2021 10:29:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E921E1F384; Wed, 22 Dec 2021 09:29:47 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1640165387; 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=xpBZliC/cTte7Qf5XUgchu+0l4ubgyZrkVcK2w3c3q0=; b=Py9Nh9rjGiGkCFCCD0PEw+bDxLS4Q2pggptBoC+AoNw4CfnT9ibQkEf9o8vjqVEmSrmg16 AgvMXIJC+iWKG+p+rO3h9fDNfQlW3aOC0W3at+ipMMIwWa7EnylEn4naJu1JCpdK/jkRPF ppLtz8NxSnWJk6Td92l7C61B9gOpwz0= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1640165387; 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=xpBZliC/cTte7Qf5XUgchu+0l4ubgyZrkVcK2w3c3q0=; b=EJZzO/Mt+DABYdSnxWN6au5Hphwb3NV0vYbA1VPFZU7HswWL/Q6EflMuHeRGXNbM2Lxm0t qq2k/qFxli8vBmAQ== Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A682913CE7; Wed, 22 Dec 2021 09:29:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id rSnOJgvwwmE2XQAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Wed, 22 Dec 2021 09:29:47 +0000 Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2021 10:29:46 +0100 From: Petr Vorel To: Jan Stancek Message-ID: References: <20211220180748.36A90A3B8E@relay2.suse.de> <20211221113042.21357-1-rpalethorpe@suse.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.4 at in-7.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: Petr Vorel Cc: Richard Palethorpe , LTP List , automated-testing@lists.yoctoproject.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" Hi Jan, all, > > .... > > > +++ b/runtest/syscalls-unstable > > How about having name syscalls-next? Although there can be tests which are from > > some kernel maintainer tree (it does not have to be limited to next tree), > > unstable can mean "tests which aren't fixed yet and thus buggy". > staging? IMHO better than unstable, just staging is in kernel for not yet ready drivers which need to cleanup, thus it could be confusing similar way as unstable. But this should be ok, we document the purpose. > IMO separate runtest would be enough, any notes why and how test was developed > could be in comments in code, where people can find it (less metadata > to maintain), > and those comments could stay there after feature is accepted to > mainline, we just > move test between runtest files. +1, actually the simplest solution. Kind regards, Petr -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp