From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Stancek Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2019 14:20:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: [LTP] [RFC PATCH 1/2] tst_test: Add test multiplex function In-Reply-To: <20190306182829.GA3127@rei> References: <20190306152430.25219-1-chrubis@suse.cz> <1194364640.5702234.1551891235712.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <20190306170008.GE12479@rei> <815826896.5712903.1551893744593.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <20190306182829.GA3127@rei> Message-ID: <579318010.5729499.1551900024400.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it ----- Original Message ----- > Hi! > > > > on first look this looks like a workaround, because we have locked > > > > ourselves out of .test function for timer tests. > > > > > > I do not follow you here, can you elaborate? > > > > If this wasn't timer test, I'd ask why don't we use existing .test and > > .tcnt, > > your test() func can be called with a parameter, so you could change > > the code to choose correct syscall/glibc func based on value of that > > parameter. > > > > For normal tests, this looks almost and .test/.tcnt functionality, > > except test count can be also dynamic. > > Well so does the .all_filesystems flag, however I see these concepts to > be orthogonal to what the actual test does, which is the reason I want > them hooked up in the library rather than to be part of the testcase > code. OK, so it's like another level on top of current test functions. I probably would like 'variant' somewhere in name more, but overall I'm not against the patch. Are you planning on adding some docs too? Regards, Jan