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 A3917C433EF for ; Thu, 5 May 2022 10:08:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E07D3CA8C4 for ; Thu, 5 May 2022 12:08:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from in-6.smtp.seeweb.it (in-6.smtp.seeweb.it [217.194.8.6]) (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 6861F3CA836 for ; Thu, 5 May 2022 12:08:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.220.28]) (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 A773714004E6 for ; Thu, 5 May 2022 12:08:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id F404921979; Thu, 5 May 2022 10:08:00 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1651745281; 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=ERrhj2pdCegp2WxVojvOcjrN9a/YypmntP9Ujtv6DhQ=; b=VAIef0yPQUl/PgSWcBtgVsNsDGvlxOHdIlPt9xnukLkWy1lkaXvY7LKkWx+dv7cO75K7rA /3NvEGOMjhqpAeq8v3SUFcsgpcmtFNlJt2a6aZQwOPyDMS98kb+i60gCRGl27C5Orl04ld ThtTxMBih/aLfhjyIaG0e7L5lfCOlV4= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1651745281; 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=ERrhj2pdCegp2WxVojvOcjrN9a/YypmntP9Ujtv6DhQ=; b=QZ7YXf6sAaMYZghBS/AUwWOrROKcErNLdBuVBj6q0NopsanFLxEm5s+CuBAWa32QyCFKRS 7dORxzofFGA0E5DQ== Received: from g78 (unknown [10.163.24.182]) (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 B00DE2C141; Thu, 5 May 2022 10:08:00 +0000 (UTC) References: <20220503174718.21205-1-chrubis@suse.cz> <875ymke631.fsf@suse.de> User-agent: mu4e 1.6.10; emacs 28.1 From: Richard Palethorpe To: Petr Vorel Date: Thu, 05 May 2022 10:53:24 +0100 In-reply-to: Message-ID: <87k0b0cmx1.fsf@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.4 at in-6.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [Automated-testing] [PATCH v2 00/30] Introduce runtime and conver tests 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, automated-testing@lists.yoctoproject.org 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, Petr Vorel writes: > Hi all, > >> > TODO: > >> > This patchset is reasonably complete in a sense that it removes the >> > timeout API at the end. Still there are a few things to consider: > >> > - is reusing the -I parameter a good idea? Wouldn't adding new parameter >> > (-r) be better? > > But -r is using only when .max_iteration_runtime set, right? > How should it behave on tests which don't set it? > Should -I and -r be mutually exclusive? > Maybe reusing -I would be simpler for users. > >> Perhaps we could deprecate -I, but convert it to use the new mechanism >> while trying to keep the behaviour similar. > >> I'm not sure we need a global -r option, but unlike -i it's not much >> effort to support. It would not surprise me if there are existing tests >> which don't work with -i. > ^^ Do you mean -I ? Nope, I mean -i, my point is that global parameters add another failure mode and -i is the best example of this. However -r has less implications than -i. > > Kind regards, > Petr > >> > - there are quite likely tests that run for more than a second or a two >> > and should be made runtime aware > >> > - anything else? -- Thank you, Richard. -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp