From: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
To: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>
Cc: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>,
Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail.com>,
linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org,
Martin Doucha <martin.doucha@suse.com>,
ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: Re: [LTP] [RFC] SCTP tests in LTP vs. on github.com/sctp
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 14:32:43 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YfqH+7Bsr9LrnJn1@pevik> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Yfp49PCW9Res5gXG@t14s.localdomain>
Hi Marcelo,
> Hi Petr,
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 12:13:25PM +0100, Petr Vorel wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > SCTP tests lksctp-tools [1] are also in LTP [2].
> > IMHO it's not worth to have it on both places.
> Agree. I wasn't aware of the copy in LTP, btw.
> A question I have now is, is getting more exposure because it is in
> LTP? As in, does it get executed periodically by bots somewhere?
Maybe yes, hard to tell. Not sure even how many people even run SCTP tests
included by LTP. We could ask at automated-testing [8] (embedded people + hopefully
folks from KernelCI [9]) or send the update there. We'd also put a link in
to remaining location in git commit message if agree to remove it from LTP.
> > lksctp-tools looks like to be the official ones [3] so maybe drop it from LTP?
> > Version in LTP was updated to 1.0.15 some time ago (upstream has 1.0.19, containing various fixes [4],
> > maybe worth to be backported to lksctp-tools? Frankly speaking even being older
> > version the LTP code looks to me better. One test was even rewritten to LTP new
> > C API [5] in order to apply more improvements [6].
> > BTW I'd really recommend lksctp-tools project to take new LTP C API [7] and
> > rewrite tests into it. But are these tests still relevant? (is it worth of
> > work?)
> These are nice tips, thanks. We certainly can have a take on them.
Yw.
Kind regards,
Petr
> Best regards,
> Marcelo
> > Kind regards,
> > Petr
> > [1] https://github.com/sctp/lksctp-tools
> > [2] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/tree/master/utils/sctp
> > [3] https://github.com/sctp
> > [4] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/commits/master/utils/sctp
> > [5] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/commit/fcd43b3dd7a8e8fab2b03ec9fa659f21ff5cecb2
> > [6] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/commit/fcd43b3dd7a8e8fab2b03ec9fa659f21ff5cecb2
> > [7] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/wiki/C-Test-API
[8] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/automated-testing/
[9] https://foundation.kernelci.org/
--
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-02-02 13:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-02-02 11:13 [LTP] [RFC] SCTP tests in LTP vs. on github.com/sctp Petr Vorel
2022-02-02 11:29 ` Petr Vorel
2022-02-02 12:28 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2022-02-02 13:32 ` Petr Vorel [this message]
2022-02-03 11:12 ` Cyril Hrubis
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YfqH+7Bsr9LrnJn1@pevik \
--to=pvorel@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
--cc=lucien.xin@gmail.com \
--cc=marcelo.leitner@gmail.com \
--cc=martin.doucha@suse.com \
--cc=nhorman@tuxdriver.com \
--cc=vyasevich@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox