From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wm1-f44.google.com (mail-wm1-f44.google.com [209.85.128.44]) (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 0D84512B6A 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-wm1-f44.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-40d4a7f0c4dso18276475e9.1 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=vHYsyIehaWaNUuWVQgZ9cFdOUuNsens7pEOnU8L6YOvSc5sPQScsY+C0SRL172j5H6 mO3esB8Jc5b8N3sD175Ry/r7oIQwgKqgs5BTl4sBBi8p5P+MljhvkkjUMVvrVbOTqY9R a8nwSn3WvhHqx2HGS/dM3UH8oAVnV3WvR0bzDUdl0CcD9C7y4qrSwTsVReba9GWl3LWh 9Wv2p+mRn7IA7naGLBAzKz0s8KJ2li6l1V7RDH0uAalHBozrirkMybxeKmy0cud7LpK7 MD/+7RDXYfMOsNQrWfEwN3rq0zfsKtQcwJsSOIHx3g51vhwpipaiLal3IrtP1fVvXzTW lQZg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yzx3CzHqQ8FPgw3x5AioKjMW07AbM4RaPtS7XlODltTorvSnXcC BLGVuaKyHpbHWjfc9yUM+TOg+WtdSDQ7xg== 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-kernel@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