All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
To: Veronika Kabatova <vkabatov@redhat.com>
Cc: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>,
	Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>,
	Joerg Vehlow <joerg.vehlow@aox-tech.de>,
	Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>,
	Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail.com>,
	Baruch Siach <baruch@tkos.co.il>, Philip Li <philip.li@intel.com>,
	linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org,
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
	Erico Nunes <nunes.erico@gmail.com>,
	ltp@lists.linux.it, automated-testing@lists.yoctoproject.org
Subject: Re: [LTP] [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

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

  reply	other threads:[~2022-02-08 18:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-02-03 17:48 SCTP testing Petr Vorel
2022-02-03 17:48 ` [LTP] " Petr Vorel
2022-02-04  6:37 ` Joerg Vehlow
2022-02-04 13:29 ` [Automated-testing] " Veronika Kabatova
2022-02-04 13:29   ` [LTP] " Veronika Kabatova
2022-02-08 18:50   ` Petr Vorel [this message]
2022-02-08 18:50     ` Petr Vorel

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=YgK7cwcwgcio6XIY@pevik \
    --to=pvorel@suse.cz \
    --cc=automated-testing@lists.yoctoproject.org \
    --cc=baruch@tkos.co.il \
    --cc=joerg.vehlow@aox-tech.de \
    --cc=linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
    --cc=lucien.xin@gmail.com \
    --cc=marcelo.leitner@gmail.com \
    --cc=nhorman@tuxdriver.com \
    --cc=nunes.erico@gmail.com \
    --cc=philip.li@intel.com \
    --cc=thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com \
    --cc=vkabatov@redhat.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.