From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Darren Hart Subject: Re: futex(2) man page update help request Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 11:17:36 -0700 Message-ID: References: <537346E5.4050407@gmail.com> <20140515152834.GA6926@rei.Home> <20140515163004.GB7959@rei.Home> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20140515163004.GB7959-HSzIOc4LzcM@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-man-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: chrubis-AlSwsSmVLrQ@public.gmane.org Cc: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Jakub Jelinek , "linux-man-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , lkml , Davidlohr Bueso , Arnd Bergmann , Steven Rostedt , Peter Zijlstra , Linux API , Carlos O'Donell List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On 5/15/14, 9:30, "chrubis-AlSwsSmVLrQ@public.gmane.org" wrote: >Hi! >> I've used LTP in the past (quite a bit), and I felt there was some >> advantage to keeping futextest independent. > >What advantages did you have in mind? Not CVS was a big one at the time ;-) OK, I don't mean to be disparaging here... But since you asked, back in '09 LTP had some test quality issues and I felt I could maintain futextest to a higher bar independently. > >> Perhaps things have changed enough since then (~2009 era) that we >> should reconsider. > >I've been working on LTP for a about three years now and we happen to do >quite a lot in that time. The most visible changes would be more proper >development practices (git, proper build system, code review, LKML >coding style, documentation, ...) and also huge number of fixes. Now we >are trying to catch up in coverage too. > >> We can discuss the pros/cons there if you like. > >I would love to :). Does LTP need to own the code, or can it incorporate existing projects and a sort of aggregator? How much LTP harness type code needs to be used? -- Darren Hart Open Source Technology Center darren.hart-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org Intel Corporation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755546AbaEOSSd (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 May 2014 14:18:33 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:4954 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753073AbaEOSSb (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 May 2014 14:18:31 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,1060,1389772800"; d="scan'208";a="512335026" User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.1.140326 Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 11:17:36 -0700 Subject: Re: futex(2) man page update help request From: Darren Hart To: CC: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Jakub Jelinek , "linux-man@vger.kernel.org" , lkml , Davidlohr Bueso , Arnd Bergmann , Steven Rostedt , Peter Zijlstra , Linux API , "Carlos O'Donell" Message-ID: Thread-Topic: futex(2) man page update help request References: <537346E5.4050407@gmail.com> <20140515152834.GA6926@rei.Home> <20140515163004.GB7959@rei.Home> In-Reply-To: <20140515163004.GB7959@rei.Home> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 5/15/14, 9:30, "chrubis@suse.cz" wrote: >Hi! >> I've used LTP in the past (quite a bit), and I felt there was some >> advantage to keeping futextest independent. > >What advantages did you have in mind? Not CVS was a big one at the time ;-) OK, I don't mean to be disparaging here... But since you asked, back in '09 LTP had some test quality issues and I felt I could maintain futextest to a higher bar independently. > >> Perhaps things have changed enough since then (~2009 era) that we >> should reconsider. > >I've been working on LTP for a about three years now and we happen to do >quite a lot in that time. The most visible changes would be more proper >development practices (git, proper build system, code review, LKML >coding style, documentation, ...) and also huge number of fixes. Now we >are trying to catch up in coverage too. > >> We can discuss the pros/cons there if you like. > >I would love to :). Does LTP need to own the code, or can it incorporate existing projects and a sort of aggregator? How much LTP harness type code needs to be used? -- Darren Hart Open Source Technology Center darren.hart@intel.com Intel Corporation