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 BD607C3600C for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2025 15:47:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32BBF3CB254 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2025 17:47:39 +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 (secp384r1)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E084D3CA6F4 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2025 17:47:21 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: in-3.smtp.seeweb.it; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=suse.cz (client-ip=195.135.223.130; helo=smtp-out1.suse.de; envelope-from=chrubis@suse.cz; receiver=lists.linux.it) Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.223.130]) (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 9AA2E1A00808 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2025 17:47:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org [IPv6:2a07:de40:b281:104:10:150:64:97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89019211B8; Thu, 3 Apr 2025 15:47:19 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1743695239; 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=MXwoq2LzXOQzyBFqn5UvNN7M19Fz75c0LUbZNeEqgzw=; b=2ErRT+Mqv57cufH1GoCS831HUSsmBbo5QJz12VRf3GKK8kgdJkyXe/AAO5OpA8FOrhZkyH pLsJz38t6lp3YCx0G/NjvciIOI1xtSm5RC3lFY/q66DRtpShkQOLQAdSDm4sWhBObq2Gv2 WjtaLKI4jJLjy6sadcamCSsjomfLrJk= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1743695239; 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=MXwoq2LzXOQzyBFqn5UvNN7M19Fz75c0LUbZNeEqgzw=; b=P5RF6GWqdLhXCJv4qNwFx1HtBsJMHKWovX5EWbxTpPC7w8nfeIdSkz2VQH4Kecc4HDwyk8 wdUg3aTSvuxj9kDg== Authentication-Results: smtp-out1.suse.de; dkim=pass header.d=suse.cz header.s=susede2_rsa header.b=2ErRT+Mq; dkim=pass header.d=suse.cz header.s=susede2_ed25519 header.b=P5RF6GWq DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1743695239; 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=MXwoq2LzXOQzyBFqn5UvNN7M19Fz75c0LUbZNeEqgzw=; b=2ErRT+Mqv57cufH1GoCS831HUSsmBbo5QJz12VRf3GKK8kgdJkyXe/AAO5OpA8FOrhZkyH pLsJz38t6lp3YCx0G/NjvciIOI1xtSm5RC3lFY/q66DRtpShkQOLQAdSDm4sWhBObq2Gv2 WjtaLKI4jJLjy6sadcamCSsjomfLrJk= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1743695239; 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=MXwoq2LzXOQzyBFqn5UvNN7M19Fz75c0LUbZNeEqgzw=; b=P5RF6GWqdLhXCJv4qNwFx1HtBsJMHKWovX5EWbxTpPC7w8nfeIdSkz2VQH4Kecc4HDwyk8 wdUg3aTSvuxj9kDg== Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76EFE13A2C; Thu, 3 Apr 2025 15:47:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id TlLPG4et7mfobwAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Thu, 03 Apr 2025 15:47:19 +0000 Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2025 17:47:41 +0200 From: Cyril Hrubis To: Andrea Cervesato Message-ID: References: <20250403101912.459507-1-pvorel@suse.cz> <0045063b-ae7f-4dd6-9b8e-9d760713ea3b@suse.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0045063b-ae7f-4dd6-9b8e-9d760713ea3b@suse.com> X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 89019211B8 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.51 / 50.00]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[99.99%]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:25478, ipnet:::/0, country:RU]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[5]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; DBL_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[suse.cz:dkim,suse.cz:email]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[suse.cz:+] X-Rspamd-Server: rspamd2.dmz-prg2.suse.org X-Rspamd-Action: no action X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.3 at in-3.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [RFC][PATCH 0/2] Merge runtest files 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! > this is a _huge_ topic that might affect LTP automation configurations. > > It's a job that IMHO should be done, but it makes more sense to wait for > testing suites definition in metadata, as well as a total refactoring of > old LTP tests. For a bigger changes yes. I would say that eliminating runtest files with a single test could be done sooner. > The reason of my statements is not only that runtest files should be > removed one day, but also that known issues inside products which are > tested, often require years of analysis of the runtest files and their > executions. By shuffling tests around will create issues where there's > no need due to a small logical improvement. I do not think that it's as severe as you describe it. We change runtest files a lot in each release and additions to runtest/syscall are the most frequent. > I think we should start to push more on testing suites definition inside > metadata and to refactor tests as fast as possible. So we will be free > from runtest files, leading to a more coherent structure of the tests > organization. We are getting there slowly, but I'm afraid that it will take years to get there. -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp