Re: [Automated-testing] SCTP testing

From: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
To: Veronika Kabatova <vkabatov@redhat.com>
Cc: automated-testing@lists.yoctoproject.org, ltp@lists.linux.it,
	linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org,
	Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>,
	Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>,
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
	Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>,
	Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail.com>,
	Baruch Siach <baruch@tkos.co.il>, Philip Li <philip.li@intel.com>,
	Joerg Vehlow <joerg.vehlow@aox-tech.de>,
	Erico Nunes <nunes.erico@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Automated-testing] SCTP testing
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2022 19:50:27 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YgK7cwcwgcio6XIY@pevik> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+tGwnk9YO+0Df_BRqjOU4W5y-TgdJNE3PdnaB5RWWLRF0=8cQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Veronika, all,

> On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 6:51 PM Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> wrote:

> > Hi all,

> > we've been just discussing, which repository should be hosting SCTP tests [1].

> > Do you use these SCTP tests? If yes, do you use it from LTP [2] or the official
> > SCTP kernel developers repository [3] ? If you use integrated to some testing
> > framework, would it be a problem if repository changes?

> > Also, do you use LTP network tests at all?

> Hi,

> we're currently not running these, but if I may offer a suggestion from my
> experience: It's easier for people to pick up testing when it's already a
> part of a test suite, rather than a separate test that they have to figure
> out a) even exists b) how to run it

> There are large test suites like LTP, kselftests and xfstests that most
> people are aware of, but then you get a lot of smaller tests or random
> scripts that, unless you're already familiar with the subsystem or get
> them linked directly, people won't find easily. And if a CI system wants
> to start running those tests, they most likely need to create a wrapper
> to handle test specifics, while the enablement via a larger test suite
> is way easier (as they can already handle it and all that's needed is
> to enable that specific test subset).

> Consolidating smaller tests into LTP or kselftests, where applicable,
> would make the testing process more streamlined and easier to follow
> for new folks too, as the expected testing could be unified across
> subsystems and there would be no surprises.

Thanks a lot for your input.

Agree, thus from this point it'd make more sense to keep it in LTP.
Given only 2 people responded and none of you actually run these tests.
That suggests little interest in SCTP testing.

@SCTP kernel maintainers: We LTP maintainers don't care which repo will be
chosen it's up to you to decide.

Kind regards,
Petr

> Veronika

> > Kind regards,
> > Petr

> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-sctp/YfpnVfrto4Elshy5@pevik/
> > [2] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/tree/master/utils/sctp
> > [3] https://github.com/sctp/lksctp-tools