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

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

On 9/16/24 09:28, Dev Jain wrote:
>
> On 9/9/24 23:24, Shuah Khan wrote:
>> On 9/8/24 23:16, Dev Jain wrote:
>>>
>>> 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?
>>>>
>>
>> I can pull this with x86v maintainer ack.
>>
>> Or to go through x86 tree:
>>
>> Acked-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
>>
>>
> Gentle ping, adding all x86 maintainers and the x86 list, in case they 
> missed.

Gentle ping