From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wr1-f52.google.com (mail-wr1-f52.google.com [209.85.221.52]) (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 393F912B74 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2024 08:34:42 +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="aWSxOLhM" Received: by mail-wr1-f52.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-336746c7b6dso1538988f8f.0 for ; Mon, 08 Jan 2024 00:34:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=google; t=1704702881; x=1705307681; darn=vger.kernel.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=aWSxOLhMBt67gko+wp/hw79/N1xiyAhcULyJCFaajUXhhpLxOHw1zQt45IlP1qLgrm cS7GiORgmazWxjvj7Nu0V4s/p7JCapp/KaRVXy3bzPRQC/qFER59yVgdwkJCNzQiRgGw /+gkM7oMEqjiItiQ3VnAKgJsdHtxP2ZiAb0hFB7U40zw2yi/Adn6X5A/v/qYryVH73Hr w9GW5raYY3yNzAtubEivj76/ETpmCSFOnko1O8T5nAhS/ez/XHcPfAtXkia+AOLjaVO9 DlFl4Ke4+7bzB/WNqi4EVw+kzWexf/a8NDdiMK31qF6v1KBOVT7/tIIOzsaDXm3Laf0p 3KvA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1704702881; x=1705307681; 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=FULdsNQ7an4/aWox5hu8iGihp/Ynw+eWzb9GHN6xsv7LkxLe4MGpXnZGYEe5ewn64N qbYMAxpOF6b6oUzDrvGHdLjAKwJtLt0CuKGeUrJPxco78OOPSSYD/de5tNnP1rEwMJqQ ON4Pfvzm9/0xkp2l3VgetDSDjSfAJ6J1DnG7V7KEyXVgoK8MiPGY/A/ppLCU+O1w8CKe RJmWnCjtjgIOiTdwqiN4gl0eDtQcJmZhmTalESK72Gf6JUjgt2ZoE7r3tazwYLfT05vT eJfXCuW9Q3wVqSgRfBJP/D4EJzTgwgURlEa5h1rH3D9ePhwzIaaBW3J+L/nOY8yEvhrm 0a7A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yw+ytsoyQJXVxtWoKSfNOr6r/NkX24TDwP9oxS2CQv1LC8onpbZ Fea0AFraFiBwqi4CUnuiXbaEXRnL9p03Pw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IG/mp6y+0cYUrDCavig/3hnnulb4tFtsRjSF6zEM6NAi6nWZTX4f7mAdVBvGKSLQG0+ZSf0JA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:3ac6:b0:40e:4785:276f with SMTP id d6-20020a05600c3ac600b0040e4785276fmr507460wms.100.1704702881399; Mon, 08 Jan 2024 00:34:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.20.10.3] ([37.161.21.69]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id fc7-20020a05600c524700b0040d7b340e07sm10122595wmb.45.2024.01.08.00.34.37 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 08 Jan 2024 00:34:40 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <6fd9dcfa-b412-4573-a2c7-e4ded89bb225@suse.com> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2024 09:34:35 +0100 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-sh@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