From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755546AbaEOSSd (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 15 May 2014 14:18:33 -0400
Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:4954 "EHLO mga02.intel.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1753073AbaEOSSb (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 15 May 2014 14:18:31 -0400
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,1060,1389772800"; 
   d="scan'208";a="512335026"
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.1.140326
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 11:17:36 -0700
Subject: Re: futex(2) man page update help request
From: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>
To: <chrubis@suse.cz>
CC: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
        Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>,
        "linux-man@vger.kernel.org" <linux-man@vger.kernel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <CF9A3A75.90F40%dvhart@linux.intel.com>
Thread-Topic: futex(2) man page update help request
References: <537346E5.4050407@gmail.com>
 <CF98E3EF.90564%dvhart@linux.intel.com>
 <20140515152834.GA6926@rei.Home>
 <CF9A3521.90ECC%dvhart@linux.intel.com>
 <20140515163004.GB7959@rei.Home>
In-Reply-To: <20140515163004.GB7959@rei.Home>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 5/15/14, 9:30, "chrubis@suse.cz" <chrubis@suse.cz> wrote:

>Hi!
>> I've used LTP in the past (quite a bit), and I felt there was some
>> advantage to keeping futextest independent.
>
>What advantages did you have in mind?

Not CVS was a big one at the time ;-)

OK, I don't mean to be disparaging here... But since you asked, back in
'09 LTP had some test quality issues and I felt I could maintain futextest
to a higher bar independently.

>
>> Perhaps things have changed enough since then (~2009 era) that we
>> should reconsider.
>
>I've been working on LTP for a about three years now and we happen to do
>quite a lot in that time. The most visible changes would be more proper
>development practices (git, proper build system, code review, LKML
>coding style, documentation, ...) and also huge number of fixes. Now we
>are trying to catch up in coverage too.
>
>> We can discuss the pros/cons there if you like.
>
>I would love to :).

Does LTP need to own the code, or can it incorporate existing projects and
a sort of aggregator?

How much LTP harness type code needs to be used?

-- 
Darren Hart					Open Source Technology Center
darren.hart@intel.com				            Intel Corporation