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 9B582C433EF for ; Mon, 13 Dec 2021 12:07:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id D193B3C898C for ; Mon, 13 Dec 2021 13:07:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-4.smtp.seeweb.it (in-4.smtp.seeweb.it [217.194.8.4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98F3A3C0BB7 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 2021 13:06:53 +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-4.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 031D31000DDC for ; Mon, 13 Dec 2021 13:06:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29BAD1F3BA; Mon, 13 Dec 2021 12:06:52 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1639397212; 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=xW/pj+3gx314wVXrmcXSupVR9nQSudVd+3xThPaI4ZE=; b=B3yOjavSYoEhPmMc0bvLjGKA9yR+GVOdkoy/AnlUd7YfBdGHQa3/UgMYdBWFA5FdQ/nBkX TPdQXP1K+F/ZD8aSFxvf1GO8cWZ8PoAaVKwhUrRl4PR5y+jYqHrFPD2PM/EVG1UvPWuy7g fU58J6FKEk6kFanlkzHJa5nUgGs6e78= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1639397212; 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=xW/pj+3gx314wVXrmcXSupVR9nQSudVd+3xThPaI4ZE=; b=r+UrdgWNbDahtSpf+H7HItVXcSFpEGbv6yfV75iTL9VOILJUEm126ueV7PBgbrkOM4uQVO 9pueIjbP06k0TlAQ== Received: from g78 (unknown [10.163.24.42]) (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 BE419A3B85; Mon, 13 Dec 2021 12:06:51 +0000 (UTC) References: <20211210134556.26091-1-pvorel@suse.cz> <87tufcao8l.fsf@suse.de> <61B70DE2.4040402@fujitsu.com> User-agent: mu4e 1.6.9; emacs 27.2 From: Richard Palethorpe To: pvorel@suze.cz Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 11:17:50 +0000 In-reply-to: <61B70DE2.4040402@fujitsu.com> Message-ID: <87lf0oaeui.fsf@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.4 at in-4.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] doc/maintainer: Add policy for new functionality 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, "xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com" writes: > Hi! >> Hi! >>>> +* Tests for new functionality in mainline kernel should be merged after final >>>> + release of kernel which contains that functionality (it's not enough when the >>>> + feature gets into rc1, because it can be reverted in later rc if >>>> problematic). >>> >>> What is the concern? All I can see is that we merge a test which is for >>> a feature that is never included >> >> Not only that, the interface may change subtly. That can always happen as plenty of changes will break LTP test expectations, but not real programs. >> >>> The issue is we may forget to merge patch sets for features which are >>> included (a far worse result). It's more stuff waiting around in the >>> queue. At the least we should have a procedure for tracking them (like >>> tagging github issues for review at each mainline release). >>> >>> If a test requires a kernel config which doesn't exist in mainline we >>> could also look for that automatically. >> >> The main issue is that if we happen to release LTP meanwhile with a test >> for a syscall that didn't get included in the mainline in the end we >> have released LTP that is supposed to be stable and the test will start >> to fail when the syscall number is allocated for something else which >> will happen sooner or later. > I know a example that is quotactl_path syscall. >> If the real issue is LTP releases, then why not exclude tests for new features from them? I assume it's only a small number of commits which would need to be removed. Possibly we could tag them in git when merging so it is not a lot more work for whoever does the release (namely Cyril) to create a branch without them. My main concern is this will throw up a barrier to motivated contributors working on the cutting edge. -- Thank you, Richard. -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp