Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] support/testing: ltp-testsuite: replace runltp by kirk

From: Petr Vorel <petr.vorel@gmail.com>
To: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
Cc: Julien Olivain via buildroot <buildroot@buildroot.org>,
	Julien Olivain <ju.o@free.fr>,
	Maxim Tarelov <tarelovma@yandex.ru>
Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] support/testing: ltp-testsuite: replace runltp by kirk
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2026 07:23:32 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260116062332.GA554275@pevik> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aWlEAhChn8gSm7QZ@windsurf>

Hi all,

> Hello,

[ Cc Maxim ]

> On Tue, Dec 30, 2025 at 06:49:58PM +0100, Petr Vorel wrote:

> > Yeah. I don't like it either. Specially LTP tests themselves does not require
> > anything (single test is either binary written in C statically linked LTP
> > libraries, we also have few POSIX compatible shell based tests which require
> > barely minimum of external dependencies), it can be run as is.

> > ATM we have list of tests in so called runtest files [1], which contain list of
> > tests (each line is single test: "test_label binary/script optional_arguments"),
> > therefore anything which can remove the first parameter and execute the rest can
> > be LTP runner. i.e. Buildroot custom script could be really minimal.

> I don't think I would want Buildroot to carry its own custom script
> for this.

Fair enough.

We suggested the solution for the people which insisted we'd keep old runltp
script forever.

And I tend to suggest it when see patches like this one:

https://lore.kernel.org/buildroot/20260114192413.569151-1-tarelovma@yandex.ru/

> > runltp does quite a few other things but these who need them should really move
> > to kirk. Also we plan to implement in kirk and ltx running tests in parallel.
> > That will save a lot of runtime.

> > [1] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/tree/master/runtest

> > > One option would as suggested by Petr to use kirk in its intended mode,
> > > with kirk running on the host, and connected over SSH to the target to
> > > run tests.

> > > On the other hand, it was a lot more simple/convenient to be able to
> > > just run a simple shell script on the target to run the test suite.

> > Would it be possible to have both? Vendor runltp for local use and package kirk
> > as a host package (+ ltx as normal package)?

> I'm not sure what you're suggesting as "both"? Do you mean, having a
> simple test runner that we can run directly on the target, but also
> offer the possibility of building/installing kirk to run the test
> suite from the host?

Yes.

> I'm not sure what ltx is in this context.

https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltx
(ltx is not yet relevant because it is still experimental / unfinished.
It's a test executor which allows to execute binaries on host in the fastest way
as possible. In the future together with LTP metadata it will allow to run tests
in parallel - speedup.)

Kind regards,
Petr

> Best regards,

> Thomas
_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot@buildroot.org
https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot