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 D6F91C19F2C for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2022 07:41:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 708243C920D for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2022 09:41:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from in-3.smtp.seeweb.it (in-3.smtp.seeweb.it [IPv6:2001:4b78:1:20::3]) (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 259143C8CCF for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2022 09:41:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [IPv6:2001:67c:2178:6::1c]) (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-3.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 842841A004B1 for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2022 09:41:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id D47224D521; Mon, 1 Aug 2022 07:41:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1659339683; 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=TLCyw8+AInqfXpD2GZ+buZOnzHUQ6XZx9fI5SBI0SNA=; b=X9InGUw7ZT6RXvtyOEzW9D2sZegIbQAfeOiTkoPnICYJleAO0qn3g6Nqke5FDamW52LEfe XA6jgQJwFfO5qm2pg9J5RMlvzarZFUBKoRwftgV9By2sJIhXJ7cIUazmbNaJCleLJmtX6r Pfg5Zxm5bfjZiGa/bJeyW1hHpwzO7VI= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1659339683; 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=TLCyw8+AInqfXpD2GZ+buZOnzHUQ6XZx9fI5SBI0SNA=; b=jsEO145x97Ws3kJZkPxSgyO+du7nRTJ1583nWzobrJlYFS3unL4QYMeIx9Voom5EeN76mw yKIjL4loYrl7TVDw== Received: from g78 (unknown [10.163.24.226]) (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 714532C141; Mon, 1 Aug 2022 07:41:23 +0000 (UTC) References: <20220727053307.3009235-1-lkml@jv-coder.de> <20220727053307.3009235-4-lkml@jv-coder.de> User-agent: mu4e 1.6.10; emacs 28.1 From: Richard Palethorpe To: Petr Vorel Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2022 08:16:10 +0100 In-reply-to: Message-ID: <87pmhkfm1p.fsf@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.4 at in-3.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH v2 3/3] configure: Integrate open posix testsuite configure 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: Joerg Vehlow , automated-testing@lists.yoctoproject.org, 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, Petr Vorel writes: > Hi Joerg, > > [ Cc automated-testing@lists.yoctoproject.org ] > >> From: Joerg Vehlow > >> This changes the default installation location >> of the open posix testsuite from >> $prefix >> to >> $prefix/testcases/open_posix_testsuite > I need to have a deeper look on this patchset next week. > But it looks to me strange, that running LTP top level configure causes > installation into /opt/ltp/testcases/open_posix_testsuite/, but after running > ./configure in testcases/open_posix_testsuite make install goes by default to > /opt/openposix_testsuite. > > Also openposix does not use LTP API, when we're touching it, wouldn't it make > more sense to put it into separate git repository? IMHO that would cause work > for other people (clone separate git, need to fix CI and tools which are using > it), but openposix embedded in LTP always looked strange to me. I wouldn't be against this based on my anecdotal experience. I don't recall a specific time these tests found a kernel bug. They sometimes find issues with glibc, but there is usually a debate as to how to interpret the spec instead of a clear error on glibc's part. Most often the test is broken. So I'd say these tests are almost useless for kernel testing. I also think they often misinterpret the POSIX spec or have some basic logic error. -- Thank you, Richard. -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp