From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from a.ns.miles-group.at ([95.130.255.143] helo=radon.swed.at) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1auwxD-0004pN-0h for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 26 Apr 2016 06:58:40 +0000 Subject: Re: [RFC] Porting kernel MTD tests to user space To: dedekind1@gmail.com, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org References: <1461622409-14970-1-git-send-email-richard@nod.at> <1461647856.32142.1.camel@gmail.com> Cc: david.oberhollenzer@sigma-star.at From: Richard Weinberger Message-ID: <571F117E.8090709@nod.at> Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 08:58:06 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1461647856.32142.1.camel@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Am 26.04.2016 um 07:17 schrieb Artem Bityutskiy: > On Tue, 2016-04-26 at 00:13 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote: >> David was so kind and did an initial port of Linux's MTD tests to >> user space. >> He took most tests as-is and massaged them to work in user space >> using libmtd. >> In the long run the goal is giving up the kernel tests as much as >> possible >> and improve the tests present in mtd-utils. >> >> Feedback is very welcome! > > I would consider moving them, not just porting. Indeed, we probably do > not want to have the same code in 2 places, or is there a strong reason > why would we want that? I'd mark ported tests as obsolete but keep them to not break somebodies setups. But I think you are right, having two code bases is not what we want. Brian, what is your opinion on that? Thanks, //richard