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 A25B4C4332F for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:38:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BA273CE54C for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2023 10:38:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-2.smtp.seeweb.it (in-2.smtp.seeweb.it [IPv6:2001:4b78:1:20::2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-384)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A0DF3C2969 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2023 10:38:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29]) (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-2.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0101600648 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2023 10:38:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF6911F750 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:38:44 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1699868324; 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=YXfeW706mGO2DJERm1vP2tSv+vnR6q7xdNXmpL3VaRM=; b=m8ML929q7u+2giUVVusg2pIf2UfRLdTJriJwGXSiqiliqVOq4gYQzWVGIaJ3YgFv463Tie i/tNlKUj2EwdLllGDbEjVKkVl0SDHVxwTtmAPJZrAKd0BwZRBct0z0O0k2AVB8Jj6erUs3 upI62OF9HnSi2HHMEUTpPwFcYUnfgds= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1699868324; 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=YXfeW706mGO2DJERm1vP2tSv+vnR6q7xdNXmpL3VaRM=; b=ypdf/sYd57zw2YYgWrWa16H5m9XdJaJRFDeE2Gsy0R6EyoqPaksHibohqyP5LKav92aUjZ 22G9NiDPVzpGQpBw== Received: from g78 (rpalethorpe.udp.ovpn1.prg.suse.de [10.100.228.202]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B6A32C5B4; Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:38:44 +0000 (UTC) References: <20230912144351.13494-1-mkittler@suse.de> <20230912144351.13494-2-mkittler@suse.de> <11689901.tHia2Qjv5r@linux-9lzf> User-agent: mu4e 1.10.7; emacs 29.1 From: Richard Palethorpe To: Marius Kittler Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:31:36 +0000 Organization: Linux Private Site In-reply-to: <11689901.tHia2Qjv5r@linux-9lzf> Message-ID: <87h6lqat7g.fsf@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.1 at in-2.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH v1 1/2] Ensure prio is within valid range in `rt-migrate.c` 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: rpalethorpe@suse.de 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" Hello, Marius Kittler writes: > Am Mittwoch, 13. September 2023, 11:11:42 CEST schrieb Andrea Cervesato: >> Hi! >> >> I generally suggest to refactor test into new API if a structural >> change is needed. > > That is why I refrained from a structural change and implemented the fix with > the minimum amount of change possible. This way the risk of introducing new > bugs should be very small and the low "hanging fruit" is grabbed. > >> I would suggest to take a look at the code a bit closer and to guess how >> much effort we should put in order to rewrite it with new API. > > I guess it would be doable and if that's wanted I can do that as the next step > as a separate commit. Not sure how long it'll take me, maybe a couple of hours > or a day (since I'm still new to ltp). (There is no ticket asking about such a > refactoring explicitly so I honestly don't know whether it is wanted or > whether we should invest our time better elsewhere.) I merged it and the fix looks good. Thanks! I'm not sure it is worth applying little fixes to these tests without a rewrite or investigating wether this test is a duplicate, but it's done now. -- Thank you, Richard. -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp