[LTP] SCTP testing

[LTP] SCTP testing

[Petr Vorel]

Hi all,

we've been just discussing, which repository should be hosting SCTP tests [1].

Do you use these SCTP tests? If yes, do you use it from LTP [2] or the official
SCTP kernel developers repository [3] ? If you use integrated to some testing
framework, would it be a problem if repository changes?

Also, do you use LTP network tests at all?

Kind regards,
Petr

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-sctp/YfpnVfrto4Elshy5@pevik/
[2] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/tree/master/utils/sctp
[3] https://github.com/sctp/lksctp-tools

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] SCTP testing

[Joerg Vehlow]

Hi Petr,

Am 2/3/2022 um 6:48 PM schrieb Petr Vorel:
> Hi all,
> 
> we've been just discussing, which repository should be hosting SCTP tests [1].
> 
> Do you use these SCTP tests? If yes, do you use it from LTP [2] or the official
> SCTP kernel developers repository [3] ? If you use integrated to some testing
> framework, would it be a problem if repository changes?
We would run these tests, if our kernels would have SCTP enabled. I
don't think this will happen any time soon and I don't really see a
problem pulling sctp tests from another repo.

> 
> Also, do you use LTP network tests at all?
Yes we are trying to run as many ltp tests as possible.

Joerg

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] [Automated-testing] SCTP testing

[Veronika Kabatova]

On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 6:51 PM Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> we've been just discussing, which repository should be hosting SCTP tests [1].
>
> Do you use these SCTP tests? If yes, do you use it from LTP [2] or the official
> SCTP kernel developers repository [3] ? If you use integrated to some testing
> framework, would it be a problem if repository changes?
>
> Also, do you use LTP network tests at all?
>

Hi,

we're currently not running these, but if I may offer a suggestion from my
experience: It's easier for people to pick up testing when it's already a
part of a test suite, rather than a separate test that they have to figure
out a) even exists b) how to run it

There are large test suites like LTP, kselftests and xfstests that most
people are aware of, but then you get a lot of smaller tests or random
scripts that, unless you're already familiar with the subsystem or get
them linked directly, people won't find easily. And if a CI system wants
to start running those tests, they most likely need to create a wrapper
to handle test specifics, while the enablement via a larger test suite
is way easier (as they can already handle it and all that's needed is
to enable that specific test subset).

Consolidating smaller tests into LTP or kselftests, where applicable,
would make the testing process more streamlined and easier to follow
for new folks too, as the expected testing could be unified across
subsystems and there would be no surprises.


Veronika

> Kind regards,
> Petr
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-sctp/YfpnVfrto4Elshy5@pevik/
> [2] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/tree/master/utils/sctp
> [3] https://github.com/sctp/lksctp-tools
>


-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] [Automated-testing] SCTP testing

[Petr Vorel]

Hi Veronika, all,

> On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 6:51 PM Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> wrote:

> > Hi all,

> > we've been just discussing, which repository should be hosting SCTP tests [1].

> > Do you use these SCTP tests? If yes, do you use it from LTP [2] or the official
> > SCTP kernel developers repository [3] ? If you use integrated to some testing
> > framework, would it be a problem if repository changes?

> > Also, do you use LTP network tests at all?


> Hi,

> we're currently not running these, but if I may offer a suggestion from my
> experience: It's easier for people to pick up testing when it's already a
> part of a test suite, rather than a separate test that they have to figure
> out a) even exists b) how to run it

> There are large test suites like LTP, kselftests and xfstests that most
> people are aware of, but then you get a lot of smaller tests or random
> scripts that, unless you're already familiar with the subsystem or get
> them linked directly, people won't find easily. And if a CI system wants
> to start running those tests, they most likely need to create a wrapper
> to handle test specifics, while the enablement via a larger test suite
> is way easier (as they can already handle it and all that's needed is
> to enable that specific test subset).

> Consolidating smaller tests into LTP or kselftests, where applicable,
> would make the testing process more streamlined and easier to follow
> for new folks too, as the expected testing could be unified across
> subsystems and there would be no surprises.

Thanks a lot for your input.

Agree, thus from this point it'd make more sense to keep it in LTP.
Given only 2 people responded and none of you actually run these tests.
That suggests little interest in SCTP testing.

@SCTP kernel maintainers: We LTP maintainers don't care which repo will be
chosen it's up to you to decide.

Kind regards,
Petr

> Veronika

> > Kind regards,
> > Petr

> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-sctp/YfpnVfrto4Elshy5@pevik/
> > [2] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/tree/master/utils/sctp
> > [3] https://github.com/sctp/lksctp-tools

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp