From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wm1-f53.google.com (mail-wm1-f53.google.com [209.85.128.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26E471170F for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2024 08:33:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b="Y+KvzZlc" Received: by mail-wm1-f53.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-40d5ac76667so14688035e9.1 for ; Mon, 08 Jan 2024 00:33:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=google; t=1704702813; x=1705307613; darn=lists.linux-m68k.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=GfLQg2J+OwD4mK8aB87IakjXF3Kgfssqm9r5be44QF4=; b=Y+KvzZlcyJNz2rSlK0tXPEJMjF9EUQjPMlluB0oYeF9hHCzjE9aQ3ZEJAWdPzp2RmI S/DQPk26s+LFUa7rP9eQ/lsqA1Q/B5oXpWybaE6WlEybm6YyuoVlLiG27yKSUJlTgR56 76yA0OinqfsAu+yegalLF32/YhphOcVvGyxqY9hgnCbcI83eoK0nHffra14FDsfQ0DoH KOdYkM/wIlyk60Tmg5SHVQucJTsBRAouxb9K0lrlykNqeemiViQjSrPc79bAi3Xewyiv JT4BoIAgOGAAoCm2l7dJJLgP0v/zSQYue2wOdKdzLhvLSVwcDT/R4To9bEA21+dOrrDq ydMw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1704702813; x=1705307613; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=GfLQg2J+OwD4mK8aB87IakjXF3Kgfssqm9r5be44QF4=; b=pBDq+aS70porTrRG9vEZD8Onvi/Mg96YC1D2TejP6Jyf8lHx5fdoxUTeH7V/GzSt4Y wJUz4LJf6QMbljuDFhf7lAB4rIaShlBStmNtWxnl2aCzy4ksz+jKbsujsFsjDMd+MVtT UDASINyjlZ8bWQivsuhLQfzOv2j4jRfCVAaAkTFWUX4A4YQFWTQaFIE4Lo3/hXo2SLfD gVlCwSOd51cZwPRSXPLvLtXieIN28qYfc/m3Nf3nYZwfaAGta70EwyZxnziPa4uhqL5m APV9drlQbEgv9PnYUCc3RSIGCHIWZfJjQdNHNw4qRr6WL+kHz8+ed5Wl122HiqTsx773 dDKg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxYVyKSHGTrOz15ceVO+pwkVNtspyyS2G0w7GI4XEq0r1HfON2b XDffdMQOAZqMj++mSe334NiQz9qRRBQbPA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFdr9+p9p3yVvUI5Yb2+RUaaTtc6lK6/0ftFespHQFyJZzml/U22xZUgZCqObC/GxElyekYhg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:3411:b0:40d:4dce:4a2e with SMTP id y17-20020a05600c341100b0040d4dce4a2emr2008525wmp.26.1704702813400; Mon, 08 Jan 2024 00:33:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.20.10.3] ([37.161.21.69]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p7-20020a05600c358700b0040d3db8186fsm10246189wmq.5.2024.01.08.00.33.27 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 08 Jan 2024 00:33:32 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <848d1908-b758-44c2-a7bd-f3e83da18bce@suse.com> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2024 09:33:23 +0100 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/36] Remove UCLINUX from LTP To: Rob Landley , Cyril Hrubis , Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Petr Vorel , ltp@lists.linux.it, Li Wang , Greg Ungerer , Jonathan Corbet , Randy Dunlap , John Paul Adrian Glaubitz , Christophe Lyon , linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linux ARM , linux-riscv , Linux-sh list References: <20240103015240.1065284-1-pvorel@suse.cz> <20240103114957.GD1073466@pevik> <5a1f1ff3-8a61-67cf-59a9-ce498738d912@landley.net> Content-Language: en-US From: Andrea Cervesato In-Reply-To: <5a1f1ff3-8a61-67cf-59a9-ce498738d912@landley.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi! My 2 cents. I'm working on refactoring growfiles test which uses UCLINUX flag. During its development I had occasion to check UCLINUX support and (indeed) it seems pretty broken for LTP, because nobody is maintaining it for a while and such tests use old API that will be replaced in any case sooner or later. I agree with other people about removing it, unless there's a valid reason to keep it. Just in case we want to keep it, someone should take care about UCLINUX support, testing LTP releases for it as well, but it doesn't seem like something we can do inside the LTP devs team due to the lack of resources. Regards, Andrea On 1/5/24 04:52, Rob Landley wrote: > On 1/3/24 06:09, Cyril Hrubis wrote: >> Hi! >>> I am not sure I agree with this series. >>> Removing support for UCLINUX from LTP is almost a guarantee for >>> not noticing when more breakage is introduced. >>> >>> How exactly is UCLINUX broken in LTP? >> As far as we know noone is using it and nobody is maintaing it for a >> decade, > Nobody is maintaining "uclinux" because that was a distro, but you can build > nommu support in buildroot and such, and people do. > > Rob