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 6A4CBC433F5 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 15:55:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AA533C9606 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 16:55:27 +0100 (CET) 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 RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 718773C93DA for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 16:55:17 +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-6.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7AD2D1401177 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 16:55:16 +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 B54D221763; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 15:55:15 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1643126115; 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=1NpOvKf+E4F/1/DHJ5neMt4Q46wN32UEkd31aZ1ZVxE=; b=tyKDVLwj42/kR67hLsFEuSFFmnkhSAh/3ZJ7yMbEhGdg11u9bYqOeaxvgyFTdbYzzyr7ep DhNIBFyL4FBxR/cSdzmmYytOQoCDSeiOKNlGqZPLWNKYXMfwUP5IFu/TriIZB3OuAZBjmG VQKpZhdxchwmB/CuzYsB846kZ+Uqqvw= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1643126115; 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=1NpOvKf+E4F/1/DHJ5neMt4Q46wN32UEkd31aZ1ZVxE=; b=r6/y/Jj45EQ5iktKM0UWRv0weIFGzZatEt/CZzYWlHvRxx5AqyMItRzcjhFK7wr/+O05Dg IkeTxbw1tOUzV7Bw== 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 8F58E13E0E; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 15:55:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id viwwH2Md8GF5HwAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Tue, 25 Jan 2022 15:55:15 +0000 Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2022 16:55:13 +0100 From: Petr Vorel To: Cyril Hrubis Message-ID: References: <20220125144043.31798-1-pvorel@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.4 at in-6.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: , Reply-To: Petr Vorel 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 Cyril, > 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. Thanks for info. Agree, it's confusing. I guess in tests which are very simple like sethostname or even these sched_getattr we'll just endup with duplicity, right? Because putting one function into header which is shared with tests in different directory is just confusing and not worth of doing. So I can recreate sethostname01.c. And for these tests I can make a note just to remember update struct for the other test. > > 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. Understand now. Kind regards, Petr -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp