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 59653C433EF for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 15:03:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 139D53C95F0 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 16:03:26 +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 RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67AB73C14B2 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 16:03:17 +0100 (CET) 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-2.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC1FC6011AE for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 16:03:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1447F21136; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 15:03:16 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1643122996; h=from:from: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=Wy7UKuyV9l3z8bqCD55uO31z+BW5IZV7L21a2SAcMsQ=; b=3P5rndtRTay0gbOzszB09vAJiRlycyU1WevLyiYfVo1oCtco+EQ/bhWuw7cCH2ruO58+29 L6ith/TJU1XOmh7G/b/nbpkZP74QjyTOMDNqcH4Rd6OJbkTs7g/p/YzIG5k1XetSwongdi h4npyREeDW4Hp0JQrjpknnkhlSjjb4Q= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1643122996; h=from:from: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=Wy7UKuyV9l3z8bqCD55uO31z+BW5IZV7L21a2SAcMsQ=; b=eZ0yxVTysRhZ6qBu2ltP/TCj70zr9cyUy5bztB2IE6SIz2RndYZd+AuQoM58a6w63r5N9h WKl854MFCnhSIECg== Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0015413E05; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 15:03:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id pyvrNzMR8GH+AQAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Tue, 25 Jan 2022 15:03:15 +0000 Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2022 16:05:04 +0100 From: Cyril Hrubis To: Petr Vorel Message-ID: References: <20220125144043.31798-1-pvorel@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220125144043.31798-1-pvorel@suse.cz> X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.4 at in-2.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH v2 0/4] sched_{g,s}etattr01: Add missing policies 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: , 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" Hi! > sched_getattr and sched_setattr are 99% identical (2 values are > different). I was thinking to use the same approach from e197796f22 > ("sethostname: Convert to new API"), but not sure if it's a good > approach. Actually I do not think that the approach in sethostname is good. There should be a C file for each test. If they share code that should be put into headers or libraries. We used to have more tests like that that build binaries in different directories from a single source with different macros and I find it utterly confusing. > Do we want to reduce files needed to be updated after new policy is > added? If yes, shouldn't there be just a single directory? > (what name should be using to show 2 syscalls are in sources in this > directory?) I would vote against this. -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp