* Re: [LTP] [PATCH] runtest/ipc: Add some IPC syscalls test-cases
[not found] ` <51CC37E2.20304@ti.com>
@ 2013-06-27 13:09 ` chrubis
[not found] ` <51CC3C3B.2020803@ti.com>
[not found] ` <CA+icZUW2hCKtEV-yvYSDrnuVW=MmB0ywTvKTPnStqWgmiAhKmg@mail.gmail.com>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: chrubis @ 2013-06-27 13:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Carlos Hernandez; +Cc: ltp-list
Hi!
> > Signed-off-by: Sedat Dilek<sedat.dilek@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > runtest/ipc | 60 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 60 insertions(+)
>
> NAK. Duplication is generally a bad idea.
> This have the side effect of running the same tests twice for people
> that run ipc and syscalls test scenarios.
Hmm, this is a valid point.
Thinking of the ideal way, it may be more data driven framework with a
list of all tests anotated with some group labels. I noted this for the
planned testdriver rewrite.
--
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
Build for Windows Store.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread[parent not found: <CA+icZUW2hCKtEV-yvYSDrnuVW=MmB0ywTvKTPnStqWgmiAhKmg@mail.gmail.com>]
* Re: [LTP] [PATCH] runtest/ipc: Add some IPC syscalls test-cases
[not found] ` <CA+icZUW2hCKtEV-yvYSDrnuVW=MmB0ywTvKTPnStqWgmiAhKmg@mail.gmail.com>
@ 2013-06-27 13:24 ` chrubis
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: chrubis @ 2013-06-27 13:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sedat Dilek; +Cc: ltp-list
Hi!
> >> Add IPC syscalls test-cases from "runtest/syscalls" file also to
> >> "runtest/ipc" for people interested in running IPC tests only.
> >>
> >> Run via './runltp -f ipc'.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Sedat Dilek<sedat.dilek@gmail.com>
> >> ---
> >> runtest/ipc | 60
> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> 1 file changed, 60 insertions(+)
> >
> >
> > NAK. Duplication is generally a bad idea.
> > This have the side effect of running the same tests twice for people that
> > run ipc and syscalls test scenarios.
> >
>
> The background of this was an issue in Linux-Next.
> The ipc test-cases were fine, but syscalls test-cases revealed that
> sth. was wrong in that Linux-Next release.
> For me it was not clear to also test the syscalls.
>
> So, what is with the idea of a "runtest/syscalls-ipc" file (my
> original "v1" patch, this here is "v2")?
I think that we can go with the v1 for now and figure out something
better for the new test execution framework. Are you OK with that?
--
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
Build for Windows Store.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-06-27 13:27 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <1372336933-2770-1-git-send-email-sedat.dilek@gmail.com>
[not found] ` <51CC37E2.20304@ti.com>
2013-06-27 13:09 ` [LTP] [PATCH] runtest/ipc: Add some IPC syscalls test-cases chrubis
[not found] ` <51CC3C3B.2020803@ti.com>
2013-06-27 13:28 ` chrubis
[not found] ` <CA+icZUW2hCKtEV-yvYSDrnuVW=MmB0ywTvKTPnStqWgmiAhKmg@mail.gmail.com>
2013-06-27 13:24 ` chrubis
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox