Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] selftests: Rename sigaltstack to generic signal

[Dev Jain <dev.jain@arm.com>]

On 9/7/24 01:29, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 9/4/24 23:56, Dev Jain wrote:
>>
>> On 9/4/24 22:35, Shuah Khan wrote:
>>> On 9/3/24 22:52, Dev Jain wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 9/4/24 03:14, Shuah Khan wrote:
>>>>> On 8/30/24 10:29, Dev Jain wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/27/24 17:16, Dev Jain wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/27/24 17:14, Shuah Khan wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/22/24 06:14, Dev Jain wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Rename sigaltstack to generic signal directory, to allow 
>>>>>>>>> adding more
>>>>>>>>> signal tests in the future.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry - I think I mentioned I don't like this test renamed. Why 
>>>>>>>> are you sending
>>>>>>>> this rename still included in the patch series?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am not renaming the test, just the directory. The directory name
>>>>>>> is changed to signal, and I have retained the name of the test -
>>>>>>> sas.c.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gentle ping: I guess there was a misunderstanding; in v5, I was
>>>>>> also changing the name of the test, to which you objected, and
>>>>>> I agreed. But, we need to change the name of the directory since
>>>>>> the new test has no relation to the current directory name,
>>>>>> "sigaltstack". The patch description explains that the directory
>>>>>> should be generically named.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Right. You are no longer changing the test name. You are still
>>>>> changing the directory name. The problem I mentioned stays the
>>>>> same. Any fixes to the existing tests in this directory can no
>>>>> longer auto applied to stables releases.
>>>>
>>>> I understand your point, but commit baa489fabd01 (selftests/vm: rename
>>>> selftests/vm to selftests/mm) is also present. That was a lot 
>>>> bigger change;
>>>> sigaltstack contains just one test currently, whose fixes possibly 
>>>> would have
>>>> to be backported, so I guess it should not be that much of a big 
>>>> problem?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> So who does the backports whenevenr something changes? You are adding
>>> work where as the automated process would just work without this
>>> change. It doesn't matter if there is another test that changed
>>> the name.
>>>
>>>>> Other than the desire to rename the directory to generic, what
>>>>> other value does this change bring?
>>>>
>>>> Do you have an alternative suggestion as to where I should put my 
>>>> new test then;
>>>> I do not see what is the value of creating another directory to 
>>>> just include
>>>> my test. This will unnecessarily clutter the selftests/ directory with
>>>> directories containing single tests. And, putting this in 
>>>> "sigaltstack" is just
>>>> wrong since this test has no relation with sigaltstack.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If this new test has no relation to sigaltstack, then why are you 
>>> changing
>>> and renaming the sigaltstack directory?
>>
>> Because the functionality I am testing is of signals, and signals are 
>> a superset
>> of sigaltstack. Still, I can think of a compromise, if semantically 
>> you want to
>> consider the new test as not testing signals, but a specific syscall 
>> "sigaction"
>> and its interaction with blocking of signals, how about naming the 
>> new directory "sigaction"?
>>> Adding a new directory is much better
>>> than going down a path that is more confusing and adding backport 
>>> overhead.
>>>
>
> Okay - they are related except that you view signalstack as a subset
> of signals. I saw Mark's response as well saying sigaction isn't
> a good name for this.
>
> Rename usually wipe out git history as well based on what have seen
> in the past.
>
> My main concern is backports. Considering sigstack hasn't changed
> 2021 (as Mark's email), let's rename it.
>
> I am reluctantly agreeing to the rename as it seems to make sense
> in this case.

Thanks! I guess there is no update required from my side, and you can
pull this series?
>
> thanks,
> -- Shuah
>