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 16715FD8741 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2026 11:58:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id B59AB3E486B for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2026 12:58:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-6.smtp.seeweb.it (in-6.smtp.seeweb.it [IPv6:2001:4b78:1:20::6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BEC93C7A18 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2026 12:58:34 +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-6.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7527140007D for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2026 12:58:33 +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 5F6E24D327; Tue, 17 Mar 2026 11:58:30 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1773748710; 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=IbkyigRsH6ruqCSqN2ngRErzek7xDijFRtXqq5+zTyY=; b=Cqxx8Zc9WczK91LhiJHc0m8jWQY3+6s/hx6NsuIcg9Pi4QxqeRUy7qQj3IDr67nF83jX+c IVjncSBNs1JnHbbCHd4OPU0aJH/bRSUFZHAfi0MG9ai9dPPTkD4yfKn333zjETT28lHwuB jCe5/EuEVmWMzO8EOIDVM+sJ2nZjqDg= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1773748710; 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=IbkyigRsH6ruqCSqN2ngRErzek7xDijFRtXqq5+zTyY=; b=T2LO1r4RRdEVyyfZCIF83Tl7YdSYNhW91G4Owt+ozW8L8w7m2jTNer+iyhY+plwYeNi+o+ ankFkjuO07r7w8Aw== Authentication-Results: smtp-out1.suse.de; none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1773748710; 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=IbkyigRsH6ruqCSqN2ngRErzek7xDijFRtXqq5+zTyY=; b=Cqxx8Zc9WczK91LhiJHc0m8jWQY3+6s/hx6NsuIcg9Pi4QxqeRUy7qQj3IDr67nF83jX+c IVjncSBNs1JnHbbCHd4OPU0aJH/bRSUFZHAfi0MG9ai9dPPTkD4yfKn333zjETT28lHwuB jCe5/EuEVmWMzO8EOIDVM+sJ2nZjqDg= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1773748710; 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=IbkyigRsH6ruqCSqN2ngRErzek7xDijFRtXqq5+zTyY=; b=T2LO1r4RRdEVyyfZCIF83Tl7YdSYNhW91G4Owt+ozW8L8w7m2jTNer+iyhY+plwYeNi+o+ ankFkjuO07r7w8Aw== 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 C9DAC4273B; Tue, 17 Mar 2026 11:58:29 +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 2WF6LeVBuWmvYAAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Tue, 17 Mar 2026 11:58:29 +0000 Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2026 12:58:28 +0100 From: Petr Vorel To: Andrea Cervesato Message-ID: <20260317115828.GA365182@pevik> References: <69b93029.050a0220.2e2929.5885@mx.google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <69b93029.050a0220.2e2929.5885@mx.google.com> X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-7.50 / 50.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; 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]; DBL_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org:helo,suse.cz:replyto]; FUZZY_RATELIMITED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_SEVEN(0.00)[8]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; REPLYTO_EQ_FROM(0.00)[] X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.9 at in-6.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] LTP old API conversion 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: Sebastian Chlad , ltp@lists.linux.it, Martin Doucha Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" Hi Andrea, [ Cc others who were on LTP meeting + Sebastian who might be interested ] > Hi all, > so we still have ~200 patches to refactor and to move from old LTP API into > the new LTP API. That would be really useful for tests maintenance and long > term supports, such as the `runtest` removal and replacement with a smarter > tests filtering/grouping. > This is a tedious task that requires a huge amount of work and in the past > years we managed to convert hundreds of tests by hand, each one requiring > multiple reviews iterations. > It was overwhelming not only for developers, but also for reviewers who > were stucked by reviewing new patches + tests rewriting. > In 2026 we have the chance to accelerate this transition from old API to > new API using LLMs and, as we discussed in the yesterday LTP after release > meeting, we might be in the right way to start doing it (at least for > smaller tests). > I created a set of configurations and skills in my personal repo which can > be used to start this process: https://github.com/acerv/agents-config. > It's maily tested using Claude Code, since it's the model which perform > the best (at the moment), but any other model can be used. > I experimented with a list of tests that can be obtained with the following > command: > wc -l $(grep -R '"test\.h"' --include="*.c" testcases/kernel/ | cut -d: -f1) | sort -g wc -l $(grep -R '"test\.h"' --include="*.c" testcases/ | cut -d: -f1) | sort -g Otherwise you miss 12 old API tests. > .. and tests conversion for tests which are smaller than 200 lines of code > requires minimal (if no) edit. I will continue to adapt the ltp-convert skill > in order to tweak and to improve this process for bigger tests. > ~~ Said so.. > .. since this process seems to be quite straight forward, and with the usage > of LLM we could easily generate hundreds of patches per month, we don't really > want to flood the ML with garbage and to overwhelm who's involved into > maintenance review. > How we should organize this job? > Should we set a maximum amount of tests refactoring per month? > How do we organize these patches? (i.e. with blocks of patches) I'd vote for limiting patchsets to max tests in a single directory. Why? Smaller patchset is easier to review. And if just some of the commits are accepted then fewer commits need to be rebased. Kind regards, Petr > Kind regards, -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp