From: Stanislav Kholmanskikh <stanislav.kholmanskikh@oracle.com>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] [RFC] shell wrappers for tst_checkpoint
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 11:20:28 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <574FEC4C.2000507@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <904217705.1759877.1464854305705.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
On 06/02/2016 10:58 AM, Jan Stancek wrote:
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Stanislav Kholmanskikh" <stanislav.kholmanskikh@oracle.com>
>> To: ltp@lists.linux.it
>> Cc: "vasily isaenko" <vasily.isaenko@oracle.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, 1 June, 2016 4:34:51 PM
>> Subject: [LTP] [RFC] shell wrappers for tst_checkpoint
>>
>> 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.
>
> If we don't plan to support oldlib, we should document that shell
> checkpoints will work only with newlib C testcases, since oldlib
> currently doesn't use LTP_IPC_PATH and file has different layout
> (there is no results struct).
I'd better remove the old checkpoint api from LTP. There are ~20 C test
cases using TST_CHECKPOINT_INIT(). It should be doable to convert them
to using the new api, since it's likely that they are not "legacy" and
don't require additional cleanup. :)
Per my understanding, all new C test cases are expected to be written
with the new api, so the only downside of this approach is that removing
TST_CHECKPOINT_INIT() may require more time.
>
>>
>> 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...
>>
>> 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)?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp
>>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-02 8:20 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 ` [LTP] [RFC] shell wrappers for tst_checkpoint Cyril Hrubis
2016-06-02 14:58 ` Stanislav Kholmanskikh
2016-06-06 8:40 ` Cyril Hrubis
2016-06-02 7:58 ` Jan Stancek
2016-06-02 8:20 ` Stanislav Kholmanskikh [this message]
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=574FEC4C.2000507@oracle.com \
--to=stanislav.kholmanskikh@oracle.com \
--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