All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
To: linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org, ltp@lists.linux.it
Cc: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>,
	Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>,
	Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>,
	Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail.com>,
	Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>,
	Martin Doucha <martin.doucha@suse.com>
Subject: [RFC] SCTP tests in LTP vs. on github.com/sctp
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:13:25 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YfpnVfrto4Elshy5@pevik> (raw)

Hi all,

SCTP tests lksctp-tools [1] are also in LTP [2].
IMHO it's not worth to have it on both places.

lksctp-tools looks like to be the official ones [3] so maybe drop it from LTP?

Version in LTP was updated to 1.0.15 some time ago (upstream has 1.0.19, containing various fixes [4],
maybe worth to be backported to lksctp-tools? Frankly speaking even being older
version the LTP code looks to me better. One test was even rewritten to LTP new
C API [5] in order to apply more improvements [6].

BTW I'd really recommend lksctp-tools project to take new LTP C API [7] and
rewrite tests into it. But are these tests still relevant? (is it worth of
work?)

Kind regards,
Petr

[1] https://github.com/sctp/lksctp-tools
[2] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/tree/master/utils/sctp
[3] https://github.com/sctp
[4] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/commits/master/utils/sctp
[5] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/commit/fcd43b3dd7a8e8fab2b03ec9fa659f21ff5cecb2
[6] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/commit/fcd43b3dd7a8e8fab2b03ec9fa659f21ff5cecb2
[7] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/wiki/C-Test-API

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
To: linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org, ltp@lists.linux.it
Cc: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>,
	Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>,
	Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>,
	Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail.com>,
	Martin Doucha <martin.doucha@suse.com>
Subject: [LTP] [RFC] SCTP tests in LTP vs. on github.com/sctp
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:13:25 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YfpnVfrto4Elshy5@pevik> (raw)

Hi all,

SCTP tests lksctp-tools [1] are also in LTP [2].
IMHO it's not worth to have it on both places.

lksctp-tools looks like to be the official ones [3] so maybe drop it from LTP?

Version in LTP was updated to 1.0.15 some time ago (upstream has 1.0.19, containing various fixes [4],
maybe worth to be backported to lksctp-tools? Frankly speaking even being older
version the LTP code looks to me better. One test was even rewritten to LTP new
C API [5] in order to apply more improvements [6].

BTW I'd really recommend lksctp-tools project to take new LTP C API [7] and
rewrite tests into it. But are these tests still relevant? (is it worth of
work?)

Kind regards,
Petr

[1] https://github.com/sctp/lksctp-tools
[2] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/tree/master/utils/sctp
[3] https://github.com/sctp
[4] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/commits/master/utils/sctp
[5] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/commit/fcd43b3dd7a8e8fab2b03ec9fa659f21ff5cecb2
[6] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/commit/fcd43b3dd7a8e8fab2b03ec9fa659f21ff5cecb2
[7] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/wiki/C-Test-API

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

             reply	other threads:[~2022-02-02 11:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-02-02 11:13 Petr Vorel [this message]
2022-02-02 11:13 ` [LTP] [RFC] SCTP tests in LTP vs. on github.com/sctp Petr Vorel
2022-02-02 11:29 ` Petr Vorel
2022-02-02 11:29   ` [LTP] " Petr Vorel
2022-02-02 12:28 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2022-02-02 12:28   ` [LTP] " Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2022-02-02 13:32   ` Petr Vorel
2022-02-02 13:32     ` [LTP] " Petr Vorel
2022-02-03 11:12   ` Cyril Hrubis
2022-02-03 11:12     ` [LTP] " Cyril Hrubis

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=YfpnVfrto4Elshy5@pevik \
    --to=pvorel@suse.cz \
    --cc=chrubis@suse.cz \
    --cc=linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
    --cc=lucien.xin@gmail.com \
    --cc=marcelo.leitner@gmail.com \
    --cc=martin.doucha@suse.com \
    --cc=nhorman@tuxdriver.com \
    --cc=vyasevich@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.