Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 1/1] ltp: Update to 20240129

[Petr Vorel <petr.vorel@gmail.com>]

> Hi Petr,

> On Sun, 2024-02-04 at 00:52 +0100, Petr Vorel wrote:
> > Hi Alexandre, all,

> > > On 31/01/2024 19:32:43+0100, Petr Vorel wrote:
> > > > Removed patch accepted upstream as
> > > > 8c53cc947 ("testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl: define _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE")

> > > > Rebase runtest/mm patch.

> > > > Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <petr.vorel@gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > Hi Richard, Daniel, Khem,

> > > > could anybody please test this update if build (it should).

> > > > Also, it'd be good nice to rerun proc01 -m 128 and report me with the
> > > > details, maybe we can fix it. If still problematic, it'd be nice to turn
> > > > disable_hanging_tests.patch into proper git patch (makes rebasing patch
> > > > on new LTP version easier).

> > > This fails on the autobuilders:

> > > https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/typhoon/#/builders/95/builds/5957/steps/12/logs/stdio
> > > https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/typhoon/#/builders/96/builds/5917/steps/12/logs/stdio


> > Thanks for testing this, you probably mean the warning before python stack trace:

> > scp: /opt/ltp/results/connectors: No such file or directory
> > WARNING: core-image-sato-1.0-r0 do_testimage: File could not be copied. Output: scp: /opt/ltp/results/connectors: No such file or directory

> > The problem is not due packaging, but simply runtest/connectors was removed [1],
> > thus your tooling has to be fixed not to expect it (not trying to run it).
> > I'm sorry, we sometimes do cleanup which brings incompatibility issue
> > (here it did not make sense to start SUT just for single test, thus we moved the
> > test to runtest/kernel_misc).

> I did try again with that removed:

> https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/typhoon/#/builders/96/builds/5929/steps/12/logs/stdio
> https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/typhoon/#/builders/95/builds/5968/steps/12/logs/stdio

> which comes down to:

> scp: /opt/ltp/results/fsx: No such file or directory

> so I'll remove that and try again.

> Are there any additions we should be considering too? This all feels a
> little fragile so I'm wondering if we should be reworking the way we
> handle this?

I forget that also this one was removed in fb2b6a0b3 ("fs: Remove fsx runtest
suite") [1], therefore not a real error.

Kind regards,
Petr

[1] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/commit/fb2b6a0b3c840aa80229acf4360b7bdc3ced5edb

> Cheers,

> Richard