Re: [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] doc/maintainer: Add policy for new functionality

From: Richard Palethorpe <rpalethorpe@suse.de>
To: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
Cc: pvorel@suze.cz, "ltp@lists.linux.it" <ltp@lists.linux.it>
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] doc/maintainer: Add policy for new functionality
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 11:32:19 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <874k7a9j5p.fsf@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YbnI83sr26q+naFd@pevik>

Hello Petr,

Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> writes:

> Hi Richie, all,
>
>> Hello,
>
>> Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz> writes:
>
>> > Hi!
>> >> >>> The issue is we may forget to merge patch sets for features which are
>> >> >>> included (a far worse result). It's more stuff waiting around in the
>> >> >>> queue. At the least we should have a procedure for tracking them (like
>> >> >>> tagging github issues for review at each mainline release).
>
>> >> >>> If a test requires a kernel config which doesn't exist in mainline we
>> >> >>> could also look for that automatically.
>
>> >> >> The main issue is that if we happen to release LTP meanwhile with a test
>> >> >> for a syscall that didn't get included in the mainline in the end we
>> >> >> have released LTP that is supposed to be stable and the test will start
>> >> >> to fail when the syscall number is allocated for something else which
>> >> >> will happen sooner or later.
>> >> > I know a example that is quotactl_path syscall.
>
>
>> >> If the real issue is LTP releases, then why not exclude tests for new
>> >> features from them? I assume it's only a small number of commits which
>> >> would need to be removed. Possibly we could tag them in git when merging
>> >> so it is not a lot more work for whoever does the release (namely
>> >> Cyril) to create a branch without them.
>
>> > That sounds too complex for a test or two we are usually getting during
>> > the release cycle.
>
>> > Note that people who contribute the functionality to the kernel are used
>> > to wait for next release window, kernel releases are aprox. twice as
>> > fast as LTP.
>
>> >> My main concern is this will throw up a barrier to motivated
>> >> contributors working on the cutting edge.
>
>> > So far really nobody complained, which may not be a good metric. But
>> > still unless there is a evidence that this happens I wouldn't consider
>> > spending effort on this.
>
>> OK, well if it comes up again we can revisit it. However Petr please
>> could you add the reasoning about not adding unstable tests into
>> releases.
> Isn't "... because it can be reverted in later rc if problematic" enough?
> If not what would you add? Cyril posted test getting released in LTP and later
> unstable. I could be more verbose, but not sure if that's better:
>
> * Tests for new functionality in mainline kernel should be merged after final
>   release of kernel which contains that functionality. It's not enough when the
>   feature gets into rc1, because in later rc the functionality can be changed or
>   even reverted if problematic. And this could lead to broken test.

It's only a problem because of LTP releases. We can just fix or revert
tests otherwise. Especially if the test author is also developing the
kernel feature and updating the test in lockstep.

Without LTP releases then a test can be added for a feature only in RC
and removed again. Only people who test the RC will get a result other
than TCONF from the test before it disappears again or is updated to
support the final feature.

Assuming of course people update LTP from HEAD on a regular basis. Which
of course they won't or can't, so we have releases. We don't have a
separate unstable branch because no one has volunteered to create and
maintain it. If we did we could just add such tests to that.

>
>> With that you can add
>
>> Acked-by: Richard Palethorpe <rpalethorpe@suse.com>
>
> Kind regards,
> Petr

-- 
Thank you,
Richard.

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