From: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] [RFC] shell wrappers for tst_checkpoint
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 17:03:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160601150345.GA23934@rei.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1464791693-10249-1-git-send-email-stanislav.kholmanskikh@oracle.com>
Hi!
> There is a need to use the tst_checkpoint interface from shell, but
> we don't have wrappers for it (yet).
>
> Patch 1 of the series contains one possible implementation for that,
> patch 2 - an example of usage in the context of the memcg_functional test case.
>
> I'd like to get some feedback from LTP users.
>
> My primary concern is about two issues:
>
> 1. The new test API for C is cool and takes the responsibility on
> maintaining the infrastructure for tst_checkpoint. However, I couldn't find
> a way to implement something similar in shell, so I switched back to using
> two separate functions for that - TST_CHECKPOINT_SETUP, TST_CHECKPOINT_CLEANUP.
>
> There may be a better way...
Well we can always put the cleanup into the tst_exit() which is executed
both on clean and unclean exit (tst_brkm). And the setup could be done
right after the checks for TCID and TST_TOTAL. Both supposedly if
something as TST_NEEDS_CHECKPOINTS=1 has been set before sourcing
test.sh.
Also nothing stops us from bringing the shell API closer to what we have
for C :).
We would have to source the test library script after we had defined all
the setup() cleanup() and test() functions and after setting the
corresponding TST_ID=foo, TST_NEEDS_CHECKPOINTS=1, etc. But as far as I
can tell it seems doable.
And it would be really cool if we managed to use the shared memory for
test results as well so that result from child processes (subshells)
would be propagated automatically as well.
> 2. What is the best location for the new supplemental binaries (tst_checkpoint_wait,
> tst_checkpoint_wake)? tools/apicmds/ltpapicmd.c or separate source files in
> testcases/lib/ (similar to tst_sleep)?
I would go for separate binary in testcases/lib/ rather than adding to
the ltpapicmd.c which should really be removed at some point in future,
once there are no users for the binary tst_resm.
--
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-01 15:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-01 14:34 [LTP] [RFC] shell wrappers for tst_checkpoint Stanislav Kholmanskikh
2016-06-01 14:34 ` [LTP] [RFC PATCH 1/2] a draft for tst_checkpoint shell wrappers Stanislav Kholmanskikh
2016-06-01 14:34 ` [LTP] [RFC PATCH 2/2] An example of usage of " Stanislav Kholmanskikh
2016-06-01 15:12 ` Cyril Hrubis
2016-06-01 15:03 ` Cyril Hrubis [this message]
2016-06-02 14:58 ` [LTP] [RFC] shell wrappers for tst_checkpoint Stanislav Kholmanskikh
2016-06-06 8:40 ` Cyril Hrubis
2016-06-02 7:58 ` Jan Stancek
2016-06-02 8:20 ` Stanislav Kholmanskikh
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160601150345.GA23934@rei.lan \
--to=chrubis@suse.cz \
--cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox