From: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] doc/ground_rules: Add Kernel features check rules
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2026 21:50:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260128205044.GA58055@pevik> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260128080121.18878-1-pvorel@suse.cz>
> Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
> ---
> Based on a discussion various discussions:
> https://lore.kernel.org/ltp/20260123122545.GA122331@pevik/
> https://lore.kernel.org/ltp/20260128072445.GB13495@pevik/
> Kind regards,
> Petr
> doc/developers/ground_rules.rst | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
> diff --git a/doc/developers/ground_rules.rst b/doc/developers/ground_rules.rst
> index 05e473cad5..90fe7a64ee 100644
> --- a/doc/developers/ground_rules.rst
> +++ b/doc/developers/ground_rules.rst
> @@ -174,3 +174,20 @@ These patches should also add a [STAGING] keyword into the patch subject, e.g.
> In a case that a test for unreleased kernel is really needed to be merged we do
> not add it to the list of test executed by default and keep it in
> :master:`runtest/staging` file until the kernel code is finalized.
> +
> +Kernel features check
> +---------------------
> +
> +We prefer to use :c:type:`.needs_kconfigs <tst_test>` (kernel kconfig check).
> +But do *not* use it when there is another way to detect the functionality (e.g.
> +via detecting functionality via ``/proc|sys``) *and* any of these rules applies:
> +
> +- Kernel allows to disable functionality via `kernel’s command-line parameter
> + <https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.html>`_
> + (it can be disabled in runtime).
> +- It's a check for a functionality which can be compiled as module
> + (`tristate
> + <https://docs.kernel.org/kbuild/kconfig-language.html#menu-attributes>`_,
> + modul might not be available).
> +- New kernel functionality which is unlikely to be backported (use
> + :c:type:`.min_kver <tst_test>` instead).
I wonder how about .needs_kconfigs vs. needs_drivers. Do we prefer any of these?
I suppose the rule could be .needs_drivers when nothing specific from module is
needed, .needs_kconfigs otherwise.
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/ltp/patch/20260122150652.227342-1-kushalkataria5@gmail.com/
Kind regards,
Petr
--
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-01-28 20:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-01-28 8:01 [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] doc/ground_rules: Add Kernel features check rules Petr Vorel
2026-01-28 9:00 ` Li Wang via ltp
2026-01-28 12:45 ` Petr Vorel
2026-01-28 20:50 ` Petr Vorel [this message]
2026-01-29 7:24 ` Li Wang via ltp
2026-01-29 8:59 ` Cyril Hrubis
2026-02-11 13:05 ` Andrea Cervesato via ltp
2026-03-11 9:12 ` Petr Vorel
2026-03-11 9:15 ` Petr Vorel
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=20260128205044.GA58055@pevik \
--to=pvorel@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