From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABED2EC1E91 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2026 10:08:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F68B3CE420 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2026 11:08:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-5.smtp.seeweb.it (in-5.smtp.seeweb.it [217.194.8.5]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1) server-digest SHA384) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1AA9C3CE20E for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2026 11:08:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [IPv6:2a07:de40:b251:101:10:150:64:1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-5.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71C4C600068 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2026 11:08:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (unknown [10.150.64.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B38B3E792; Thu, 5 Feb 2026 10:08:27 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1770286107; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=1oJ79PNWRDV77mLfMqwkw5xxnbWUBjyGMIkyXkvVQRo=; b=qpLQ4D5qUU9IFjc5HYidfGdUjZo3mgOINC7ktIkFvr+jXQwzB42aoRV8vRBHR4F77EN2Y1 4H8mIhXDHoskMBPDUOYK/fBtQC+fzWrPJ90Q2pG6rttvO7jthGKMKygTOwOQolqohWFBJf gI7lMcK6GVMTJCMPoyrFFVvG8KeHRVQ= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1770286107; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=1oJ79PNWRDV77mLfMqwkw5xxnbWUBjyGMIkyXkvVQRo=; b=7tjFpfQ9maSDOcQZeK6OPez8yABIesJz/dRvKK2HLSjFDeSc//eMQvJlLgYyvAzjO/NwfB 7kzZ9WQO/D3nNgBg== Authentication-Results: smtp-out1.suse.de; none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1770286107; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=1oJ79PNWRDV77mLfMqwkw5xxnbWUBjyGMIkyXkvVQRo=; b=qpLQ4D5qUU9IFjc5HYidfGdUjZo3mgOINC7ktIkFvr+jXQwzB42aoRV8vRBHR4F77EN2Y1 4H8mIhXDHoskMBPDUOYK/fBtQC+fzWrPJ90Q2pG6rttvO7jthGKMKygTOwOQolqohWFBJf gI7lMcK6GVMTJCMPoyrFFVvG8KeHRVQ= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1770286107; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=1oJ79PNWRDV77mLfMqwkw5xxnbWUBjyGMIkyXkvVQRo=; b=7tjFpfQ9maSDOcQZeK6OPez8yABIesJz/dRvKK2HLSjFDeSc//eMQvJlLgYyvAzjO/NwfB 7kzZ9WQO/D3nNgBg== Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB7FB3EA63; Thu, 5 Feb 2026 10:08:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id lx9YNBpshGmfAQAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Thu, 05 Feb 2026 10:08:26 +0000 Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2026 11:08:25 +0100 From: Petr Vorel To: Li Wang Message-ID: <20260205100825.GB294817@pevik> References: <20260203024320.227453-1-liwang@redhat.com> <20260204122332.GC224465@pevik> <20260204222753.GA279256@pevik> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.50 / 50.00]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[100.00%]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[]; HAS_REPLYTO(0.30)[pvorel@suse.cz]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; FUZZY_RATELIMITED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; DBL_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org:helo,suse.cz:replyto]; URIBL_BLOCKED(0.00)[suse.cz:replyto,imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org:helo]; REPLYTO_EQ_FROM(0.00)[] X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.9 at in-5.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH v2 1/2] openat2: define _GNU_SOURCE and include X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Petr Vorel Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" > On Wed, Feb 04, 2026 at 11:27:53PM +0100, Petr Vorel wrote: > > Hi Li, > > ... > > > > lapi/openat2.h uses struct open_how directly, shouldn't be included lapi/fcntl.h > > > > there? > > > From my understand lapi/* are appendix for missing stuff in header file. > > Yes, but we agreed in the past, that it's better to include relevant libc/kernel > > header in the lapi header [1]: > > LAPI header should always include original header. > > [1] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/blob/master/doc/old/C-Test-API.asciidoc#lapi-headers > > I thought we had a discussion about it, but now I see nobody acked the change in > > ML (cfbc41d775), therefore I somehow pushed this approach without consensus with > > others. I'm sorry for that, we can revise that. At the moment quite a few lapi > > headers use this approach (likely majority). > > IMHO it's better to include it than expect that all tests which use lapi header > > will include relevant header *before* (otherwise tests can happily always depend > > on fallback instead of using a real value from a system header). > Yes, I generally agree with this, and here is my understand: > 1. Testcase should include original (but not "lapi/header.h") > if *only* need the original file. ... and don't need any fallback from the lapi header. > 2. LAPI-header should always include original , it handling > the missing/conflicting part there. > Thus, we can treat "lapi/header.h" as a patched and only > use it intead of the original in testcase if needed. +1 > 3. We avoid including both original and "lapi/header.h" in > testase at the same time. +1 > > It's a minor detail, but being consistent helps for newcomers to understand > > LTP code. > > And *if* we agree on it, it should be now doc/developers/ground_rules.rst. > > Also there is a different approach where should be fallbacks. We use some lapi > > headers (e.g. lapi/openat2.h but there are more) which don't have public > > equivalent in libc (/usr/include/bits/openat2.h cannot be used directly, but via > > ). Therefore I would put content of lapi/openat2.h into lapi/fcntl.h, > > but that's a minor detail. > I am ok with it, the advantage merge lapi/openat2.h into lapi/fcntl.h is > keep things more centralized. > But also, keep lapi/openat2.h seperated is more modular, and it should > contains as well. Yeah, I don't have strong opinion about it, both ways would work. > > > Test cases should only include standard header files, and lapi should > > > only be used in case of missing or conflicting header files. > > But lapi/openat2.h also uses struct open_how. I would either include > > in both sources or just in lapi/openat2.h. Having it only in tests looks to me > > as not ideal. > Right, thanks for bring up this topic. Thank you for your time. I try to send a patch to add the outcome to doc/developers/ground_rules.rst and wait for ack of others to get broader consensus about it. Kind regards, Petr -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp