From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34B04C3600B for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2025 16:17:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA45E3CAC5A for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:17:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from in-4.smtp.seeweb.it (in-4.smtp.seeweb.it [IPv6:2001:4b78:1:20::4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6D8A3CAB59 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:17:00 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: in-4.smtp.seeweb.it; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=suse.cz (client-ip=195.135.223.130; helo=smtp-out1.suse.de; envelope-from=chrubis@suse.cz; receiver=lists.linux.it) Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.223.130]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-4.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41F041000361 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:16:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (unknown [10.150.64.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 435E0211F9; Mon, 31 Mar 2025 16:16:59 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1743437819; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Hs5/d793Z4IQYh2ulZKhyGKuXCoL2yG1Efq21A3RG+o=; b=aODWxUeZddb1GElb9zFR96OQBYWcXLq3/tgCjGZh4NG3mQue4MHyb31zYSqLCjGZ8zHQCT 3E3uOEAzJHaMS+3TR8Bbd6djIGnlDPi/dFLifoQBdIHTIvN9MMKqOR9QZefK5Bq2tlz2e1 8IsPqI5+jQUARc0UlQEGD0swWOUT1wU= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1743437819; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Hs5/d793Z4IQYh2ulZKhyGKuXCoL2yG1Efq21A3RG+o=; b=Zu30YkrDE54CMhvh4BM4JqXeJhXf+wSSGnUZSilC02QSiQWqLIbjjNk53/j54xuqVIxMju 7ybOQGA8GDB8hICQ== Authentication-Results: smtp-out1.suse.de; none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1743437819; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Hs5/d793Z4IQYh2ulZKhyGKuXCoL2yG1Efq21A3RG+o=; b=aODWxUeZddb1GElb9zFR96OQBYWcXLq3/tgCjGZh4NG3mQue4MHyb31zYSqLCjGZ8zHQCT 3E3uOEAzJHaMS+3TR8Bbd6djIGnlDPi/dFLifoQBdIHTIvN9MMKqOR9QZefK5Bq2tlz2e1 8IsPqI5+jQUARc0UlQEGD0swWOUT1wU= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1743437819; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Hs5/d793Z4IQYh2ulZKhyGKuXCoL2yG1Efq21A3RG+o=; b=Zu30YkrDE54CMhvh4BM4JqXeJhXf+wSSGnUZSilC02QSiQWqLIbjjNk53/j54xuqVIxMju 7ybOQGA8GDB8hICQ== Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 313C2139A1; Mon, 31 Mar 2025 16:16:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id 2J6ZCvu/6melWwAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Mon, 31 Mar 2025 16:16:59 +0000 Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:17:24 +0200 From: Cyril Hrubis To: Andrea Cervesato Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-8.30 / 50.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[99.99%]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; DBL_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[suse.cz:email,yuki.lan:mid] X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.3 at in-4.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [kirk] Remove support for external testing suite X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Linux Test Project Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" Hi! > As you may know, Kirk supports the execution of certain kselftests and > liburing testing suites. It was initially created as an experiment. > > We have made attempts to implement these features, but it seems we have > not succeeded. They appear to be largely unused by most users and are > creating a bottleneck for new Kirk implementations, such as the > automatic installation of LTP inside the SUT. This feature would be > particularly beneficial for QEMU vanilla images. We had it in the past > already and probably it's time to get this feature back. And we should > probably implement it for other testing suites due to the current API: > something that we really don't want to do (see eBPF kselftests compile > madness). > > Another concern is the maintainability of supporting for additional > testing suites. While they are interesting, the implementation is > somewhat flawed. Each testing suite has its own > input/output/configuration/compilation methods, leading to confusion and > over-engineered solutions. While we understand that no solution is > perfect, it seems we have reached a point where Kirk = LTP. Therefore, > we should reconsider maintaining features that require updates due to > changes in external testing suites. > > For these reasons, I propose that we remove support for the additional > testing suites and focus exclusively on LTP for Kirk maintenance. > > What do you think? Sounds reasonable to me. There is quite a bit of work to be done in order to implement all the advanced features in kirk and it does not help if we get distracted by side quests. -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp