Re: [PATCH 1/1] ltp: upgrade 20250530 -> 20250930

Re: [PATCH 1/1] ltp: upgrade 20250530 -> 20250930

[Petr Vorel]

Hi Richard, all,

[ I accidentally deleted mail thread. Unfortunately I don't see Message-id in
web UI [1] therefore I cannot set In-Reply-To:. Due this also any reply to other
LTP developers about runltp vs. kirk would not be in the thread ]

> > $ . oe-init-build-env
> > 
> > .../build $ bitbake ltp
> > ERROR: Error importing OE modules: module 'bb.parse' has no attribute
> > 'vardepsexclude'
> > ERROR: Unable to parse
> > /home/pvorel/install/src/openembedded/bitbake/lib/bb/parse/ast.py
> > Traceback (most recent call last):
> >   File
> >   "/home/pvorel/install/src/openembedded/bitbake/lib/bb/parse/ast.py",
> >   line 372, in eval
> >       layerid, fragment_name = f.split('/', 1)
> > 	      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > 		  ValueError: not enough values to unpack (expected 2, got 1)
> > 

> > FYI I also plan to get rid of some patches posted.

> Are you setting OE_FRAGMENTS to something in a config file? It
> shouldn't traceback like this so that is a bug but something is
> triggering it...

No, simple clone and the 2 commands above. I'll later try it again on fresh
git clone.

> I did send some questions and had some discussion on kirk a while ago.
> Quite simply, it isn't useful/interesting to Yocto Project.

I see your points [2] [3].

> What we want to test with is our images and our kernel, as we build it.
> kirk, as far as I understand it has gone a different route where there
> isn't really any userspace left and it simply tests against a kernel
> binary. We'd no longer be testing our build artefacts but some more
> artificial construct.

I don't understand "any userspace left and it simply tests against a kernel
binary". LTP tests are mostly focused on the kernel (+ it's modules). And you
can run individual tests by just executing them (+ handle environment variables)
or use runltp or use kirk. The executor does not matter that much. In the end we
at SUSE also test with LTP our built image :). (LTP is used by mainline folks
and by distro folks).

FYI although kirk is meant to be run on the host, doing a different connections,
it can also be run on SUT. Sure, there is then python3 dependency on SUT
(heavier than shell + it's dependencies), but still kind of runltp replacement.

> 
> We're trying to test what we build. You're trying to test the kernel
> for regressions. They're two different things.
> 
> I totally understand why you've gone that direction with kirk but I
> also did spell out at the time that it wasn't something which really
> fits in with the way we run tests, or what we actually aim to test. I
> was told at the time that basically, nobody is interested in what we
> want/do.

...
> > I see in meta/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/ltp.py the deprecated
> > /opt/ltp/runltp is still being used. We want to remove it (not sure
> > when, but it will happen sooner or later). Any change somebody would
> > submit a patch to switch to kirk?

> It is more likely that when you drop runltp, we'll just have to drop
> ltp. Sorry :(. I did explain this at while ago :/.

It's a question if any of the users really need LTP. If yes, you could vendor
runltp.

Or, write a simple script which parses the content of the runtest files and
execute them. FYI for part of openSUSE testing we still use our custom openQA
runner which does exactly this. It would be very light: -d and -r can be
replaced by TMPDIR and LTPROOT, -I is supported by all tests. The only missing
thing will be generating of results (if you really need it, I'd recommend kirk
and it's JSON output).

The reason we go to kirk + ltx is that in the future we plan to get rid of
runtests, replace them with metadata info (that will allow many things [4],
but you were Cc at the discussion [5]). Once this happen, runltp (or any custom
script / framework runner) will be broken. But this likely take long time.

> I did also flag the issue to our own wider community but nobody has
> stepped up to do anything about it. I've way too many other things to
> work on so it is very unlikely I have any time to look at it.

Understand, everybody is busy with the 

Kind regards,
Petr

[1] https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/224749
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/ltp/c8d4ee181809c4bbf5e21bf355c241eeb540e9a5.camel@linuxfoundation.org/
[3] https://lore.kernel.org/ltp/8043628a6eed94e788f9fedbf6c8b264ebfbae15.camel@linuxfoundation.org/
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1ImuNr9Oxo
[5] https://lore.kernel.org/ltp/ZmbFyjuXndeXCLp8@rei/

Re: [PATCH 1/1] ltp: upgrade 20250530 -> 20250930

[Richard Purdie]

On Mon, 2025-10-13 at 20:59 +0200, Petr Vorel wrote:
> Hi Richard, all,
> 
> [ I accidentally deleted mail thread. Unfortunately I don't see Message-id in
> web UI [1] therefore I cannot set In-Reply-To:. Due this also any reply to other
> LTP developers about runltp vs. kirk would not be in the thread ]
> 
> > > $ . oe-init-build-env
> > > 
> > > .../build $ bitbake ltp
> > > ERROR: Error importing OE modules: module 'bb.parse' has no attribute
> > > 'vardepsexclude'
> > > ERROR: Unable to parse
> > > /home/pvorel/install/src/openembedded/bitbake/lib/bb/parse/ast.py
> > > Traceback (most recent call last):
> > >   File
> > >   "/home/pvorel/install/src/openembedded/bitbake/lib/bb/parse/ast.py",
> > >   line 372, in eval
> > >       layerid, fragment_name = f.split('/', 1)
> > > 	      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > 		  ValueError: not enough values to unpack (expected 2, got 1)
> > > 
> 
> > > FYI I also plan to get rid of some patches posted.
> 
> > Are you setting OE_FRAGMENTS to something in a config file? It
> > shouldn't traceback like this so that is a bug but something is
> > triggering it...
> 
> No, simple clone and the 2 commands above. I'll later try it again on fresh
> git clone.

If you could share the repo/branch you cloned (poky?) I'd appreciate it
as I did try and reproduce that and couldn't. I will write some patches
to improve the code/error regardless as that much is clear from the
failure. It really shouldn't fail like that, it is embarrassing :/.

> > I did send some questions and had some discussion on kirk a while ago.
> > Quite simply, it isn't useful/interesting to Yocto Project.
> 
> I see your points [2] [3].
> 
> > What we want to test with is our images and our kernel, as we build it.
> > kirk, as far as I understand it has gone a different route where there
> > isn't really any userspace left and it simply tests against a kernel
> > binary. We'd no longer be testing our build artefacts but some more
> > artificial construct.
> 
> I don't understand "any userspace left and it simply tests against a kernel
> binary". LTP tests are mostly focused on the kernel (+ it's modules). And you
> can run individual tests by just executing them (+ handle environment variables)
> or use runltp or use kirk. The executor does not matter that much. In the end we
> at SUSE also test with LTP our built image :). (LTP is used by mainline folks
> and by distro folks).

Sorry, I'm not really being clear. The Yocto Project is in the middle
of some huge changes and I'm struggling with those. Equally, I did want
to at least given some response to your upgrade which is appreciated.

I guess we're one of the few ltp users with a cross environment. We
have a way to launch target images under emulation and our own methods
for controlling them and transferring files. We do all this without
special permissions or access other than ability to use kvm. As such we
liked being able to just run runltp on the target in the environment we
already have.

kirk, at least as I understand it, wants to do much of this for itself.
That means we end up with two ways of running the target emulation
which may or may not match. We'd much prefer just having one so we
either have issues there or we do not but our test environment is
consistent across all tests.

> FYI although kirk is meant to be run on the host, doing a different connections,
> it can also be run on SUT. Sure, there is then python3 dependency on SUT
> (heavier than shell + it's dependencies), but still kind of runltp replacement.
> 
> > 
> > We're trying to test what we build. You're trying to test the kernel
> > for regressions. They're two different things.
> > 
> > I totally understand why you've gone that direction with kirk but I
> > also did spell out at the time that it wasn't something which really
> > fits in with the way we run tests, or what we actually aim to test. I
> > was told at the time that basically, nobody is interested in what we
> > want/do.
> 
> ...
> > > I see in meta/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/ltp.py the deprecated
> > > /opt/ltp/runltp is still being used. We want to remove it (not sure
> > > when, but it will happen sooner or later). Any change somebody would
> > > submit a patch to switch to kirk?
> 
> > It is more likely that when you drop runltp, we'll just have to drop
> > ltp. Sorry :(. I did explain this at while ago :/.
> 
> It's a question if any of the users really need LTP. If yes, you could vendor
> runltp.
> 
> Or, write a simple script which parses the content of the runtest files and
> execute them. FYI for part of openSUSE testing we still use our custom openQA
> runner which does exactly this. It would be very light: -d and -r can be
> replaced by TMPDIR and LTPROOT, -I is supported by all tests. The only missing
> thing will be generating of results (if you really need it, I'd recommend kirk
> and it's JSON output).

We'd appreciate and be able to use the json output, we already have
json output for most of our other tests. Beyond that, as you say, we
don't really need much beyond what runltp does though. kirk brings with
it a number of things we definitely do not want (as mentioned above). I
don't know if we can avoid those or not.

> The reason we go to kirk + ltx is that in the future we plan to get rid of
> runtests, replace them with metadata info (that will allow many things [4],
> but you were Cc at the discussion [5]). Once this happen, runltp (or any custom
> script / framework runner) will be broken. But this likely take long time.

Right, using a vendored runltp would just buy us a small amount of time
so likely isn't a long term viable solution sadly. I'd consider it if
it were but it doesn't seem a good investment of time.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [PATCH 1/1] ltp: upgrade 20250530 -> 20250930

[Petr Vorel]

Hi Richard,

> On Mon, 2025-10-13 at 20:59 +0200, Petr Vorel wrote:
> > Hi Richard, all,

> > [ I accidentally deleted mail thread. Unfortunately I don't see Message-id in
> > web UI [1] therefore I cannot set In-Reply-To:. Due this also any reply to other
> > LTP developers about runltp vs. kirk would not be in the thread ]

> > > > $ . oe-init-build-env

> > > > .../build $ bitbake ltp
> > > > ERROR: Error importing OE modules: module 'bb.parse' has no attribute
> > > > 'vardepsexclude'
> > > > ERROR: Unable to parse
> > > > /home/pvorel/install/src/openembedded/bitbake/lib/bb/parse/ast.py
> > > > Traceback (most recent call last):
> > > > ďż˝ File
> > > > ďż˝ "/home/pvorel/install/src/openembedded/bitbake/lib/bb/parse/ast.py",
> > > > ďż˝ line 372, in eval
> > > > ����� layerid, fragment_name = f.split('/', 1)
> > > > 	����� ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > > 		ďż˝ ValueError: not enough values to unpack (expected 2, got 1)


> > > > FYI I also plan to get rid of some patches posted.

> > > Are you setting OE_FRAGMENTS to something in a config file? It
> > > shouldn't traceback like this so that is a bug but something is
> > > triggering it...

> > No, simple clone and the 2 commands above. I'll later try it again on fresh
> > git clone.

> If you could share the repo/branch you cloned (poky?) I'd appreciate it
> as I did try and reproduce that and couldn't. I will write some patches
> to improve the code/error regardless as that much is clear from the
> failure. It really shouldn't fail like that, it is embarrassing :/.

Master branch from my fork [1] do:

... $ . oe-init-build-env
./build $ bitbake ltp

ERROR: Error importing OE modules: module 'bb.parse' has no attribute 'vardepsexclude'
ERROR: Unable to parse /home/pvorel/install/src/openembedded/bitbake/lib/bb/parse/ast.py
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/pvorel/install/src/openembedded/bitbake/lib/bb/parse/ast.py", line 372, in eval
    layerid, fragment_name = f.split('/', 1)
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ValueError: not enough values to unpack (expected 2, got 1)

Kind regards,
Petr

[1] https://github.com/pevik/openembedded-core

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 1/1] ltp: upgrade 20250530 -> 20250930

[Alexander Kanavin]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2025 at 18:43, Petr Vorel via lists.openembedded.org
<petr.vorel=gmail.com@lists.openembedded.org> wrote:
> Master branch from my fork [1] do:
>
> ... $ . oe-init-build-env
> ./build $ bitbake ltp
>
> ERROR: Error importing OE modules: module 'bb.parse' has no attribute 'vardepsexclude'
> ERROR: Unable to parse /home/pvorel/install/src/openembedded/bitbake/lib/bb/parse/ast.py
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>   File "/home/pvorel/install/src/openembedded/bitbake/lib/bb/parse/ast.py", line 372, in eval
>     layerid, fragment_name = f.split('/', 1)
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ValueError: not enough values to unpack (expected 2, got 1)
>
> Kind regards,
> Petr
>
> [1] https://github.com/pevik/openembedded-core

Which revision/branch of bitbake repo are you using? Note that bitbake
and oe-core repositories are tightly coupled, and if branches are
different, or branches are same but one is behind the other, you will
get errors such as above, e.g. "ERROR: Error importing OE modules:
module 'bb.parse' has no attribute 'vardepsexclude'" is pretty much
saying that oe-core is expecting something bitbake on your machine
doesn't have.

Alex

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 1/1] ltp: upgrade 20250530 -> 20250930

[Richard Purdie]

On Fri, 2025-10-17 at 20:18 +0200, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2025 at 18:43, Petr Vorel via lists.openembedded.org
> <petr.vorel=gmail.com@lists.openembedded.org> wrote:
> > Master branch from my fork [1] do:
> > 
> > ... $ . oe-init-build-env
> > ./build $ bitbake ltp
> > 
> > ERROR: Error importing OE modules: module 'bb.parse' has no attribute 'vardepsexclude'
> > ERROR: Unable to parse /home/pvorel/install/src/openembedded/bitbake/lib/bb/parse/ast.py
> > Traceback (most recent call last):
> >   File "/home/pvorel/install/src/openembedded/bitbake/lib/bb/parse/ast.py", line 372, in eval
> >     layerid, fragment_name = f.split('/', 1)
> >     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > ValueError: not enough values to unpack (expected 2, got 1)
> > 
> > Kind regards,
> > Petr
> > 
> > [1] https://github.com/pevik/openembedded-core
> 
> Which revision/branch of bitbake repo are you using? Note that bitbake
> and oe-core repositories are tightly coupled, and if branches are
> different, or branches are same but one is behind the other, you will
> get errors such as above, e.g. "ERROR: Error importing OE modules:
> module 'bb.parse' has no attribute 'vardepsexclude'" is pretty much
> saying that oe-core is expecting something bitbake on your machine
> doesn't have.

Just to be clear, try cloning git://git.yoctoproject.org/poky which
contains both OE-Core and bitbake. This does look like a bitbake/oecore
version mismatch. I am curious which bitbake version that is? Was it
distro provided?

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 1/1] ltp: upgrade 20250530 -> 20250930

[Petr Vorel]

Hi Richard, all,

On Sat, 18 Oct 2025 at 12:06, Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2025-10-17 at 20:18 +0200, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Oct 2025 at 18:43, Petr Vorel via lists.openembedded.org
> > <petr.vorel=gmail.com@lists.openembedded.org> wrote:
> > > Master branch from my fork [1] do:
> > >
> > > ... $ . oe-init-build-env
> > > ./build $ bitbake ltp
> > >
> > > ERROR: Error importing OE modules: module 'bb.parse' has no attribute 'vardepsexclude'
> > > ERROR: Unable to parse /home/pvorel/install/src/openembedded/bitbake/lib/bb/parse/ast.py
> > > Traceback (most recent call last):
> > >   File "/home/pvorel/install/src/openembedded/bitbake/lib/bb/parse/ast.py", line 372, in eval
> > >     layerid, fragment_name = f.split('/', 1)
> > >     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > ValueError: not enough values to unpack (expected 2, got 1)
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > > Petr
> > >
> > > [1] https://github.com/pevik/openembedded-core
> >
> > Which revision/branch of bitbake repo are you using? Note that bitbake
> > and oe-core repositories are tightly coupled, and if branches are
> > different, or branches are same but one is behind the other, you will
> > get errors such as above, e.g. "ERROR: Error importing OE modules:
> > module 'bb.parse' has no attribute 'vardepsexclude'" is pretty much
> > saying that oe-core is expecting something bitbake on your machine
> > doesn't have.
>
> Just to be clear, try cloning git://git.yoctoproject.org/poky which
> contains both OE-Core and bitbake. This does look like a bitbake/oecore
> version mismatch. I am curious which bitbake version that is? Was it
> distro provided?

I'm sorry for wasting your time, my fault.  I used
git://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core.git with
git://git.openembedded.org/bitbake.git, which was outdated 2024-09-25:
29e67acb8 ("tests/parse: Add test for unclosed functions")
I forget there are two repos. But lesson learned :).
And thanks for pointing out poky repo.

Kind regards,
Petr

> Cheers,
>
> Richard

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 1/1] ltp: upgrade 20250530 -> 20250930

[Alexander Kanavin]

On Sat, 18 Oct 2025 at 21:14, Petr Vorel <petr.vorel@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm sorry for wasting your time, my fault.  I used
> git://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core.git with
> git://git.openembedded.org/bitbake.git, which was outdated 2024-09-25:
> 29e67acb8 ("tests/parse: Add test for unclosed functions")
> I forget there are two repos. But lesson learned :).
> And thanks for pointing out poky repo.

As chance would have it, poky repo is soon discontinued, and everyone
will be using separate repos. Bitbake-setup will help somewhat with
avoiding the mismatches, but bitbake should probably have checks that
it isn't used with a wildly mismatching layer metadata.

Maybe add an equivalent of LAYERSERIES_COMPAT declaration to bitbake
itself, so it doesn't just check that the layers are matching, but
also that they match bitbake?

Alex

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 1/1] ltp: upgrade 20250530 -> 20250930

[Alexander Kanavin]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 at 13:26, Alexander Kanavin via
lists.openembedded.org <alex.kanavin=gmail.com@lists.openembedded.org>
wrote:
> As chance would have it, poky repo is soon discontinued, and everyone
> will be using separate repos. Bitbake-setup will help somewhat with
> avoiding the mismatches, but bitbake should probably have checks that
> it isn't used with a wildly mismatching layer metadata.
>
> Maybe add an equivalent of LAYERSERIES_COMPAT declaration to bitbake
> itself, so it doesn't just check that the layers are matching, but
> also that they match bitbake?

Ah, there is such a check in meta/classes-global/sanity.bbclass:

    # Check the bitbake version meets minimum requirements
    minversion = d.getVar('BB_MIN_VERSION')
    if bb.utils.vercmp_string_op(bb.__version__, minversion, "<"):
        status.addresult('Bitbake version %s is required and version
%s was found\n' % (minversion, bb.__version__))

The check seems to be happening later than the parse problem you've
encountered (which is triggered by addpylib statement in
meta/conf/layer.conf), and so it would be good to do something similar
as early as possible. I'll prototype a patch.

Alex

Re: [PATCH 1/1] ltp: upgrade 20250530 -> 20250930

[Petr Vorel]

Hi Richard, all,

[ I realized that we went quite far to kirk topic, which would be interesting to
Cyril, Andrea and possible other people developers or users, therefore Cc them.
Replying to this thread:
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/224816
+ links to replies from Richardo previously in LTP ML
https://lore.kernel.org/ltp/c8d4ee181809c4bbf5e21bf355c241eeb540e9a5.camel@linuxfoundation.org/
https://lore.kernel.org/ltp/8043628a6eed94e788f9fedbf6c8b264ebfbae15.camel@linuxfoundation.org/
NOTE: Cc requires subscription.
]

I added few final points below.

> On Mon, 2025-10-13 at 20:59 +0200, Petr Vorel wrote:

...
> > > I did send some questions and had some discussion on kirk a while ago.
> > > Quite simply, it isn't useful/interesting to Yocto Project.

> > I see your points [2] [3].

> > > What we want to test with is our images and our kernel, as we build it.
> > > kirk, as far as I understand it has gone a different route where there
> > > isn't really any userspace left and it simply tests against a kernel
> > > binary. We'd no longer be testing our build artefacts but some more
> > > artificial construct.

> > I don't understand "any userspace left and it simply tests against a kernel
> > binary". LTP tests are mostly focused on the kernel (+ it's modules). And you
> > can run individual tests by just executing them (+ handle environment variables)
> > or use runltp or use kirk. The executor does not matter that much. In the end we
> > at SUSE also test with LTP our built image :). (LTP is used by mainline folks
> > and by distro folks).

> Sorry, I'm not really being clear. The Yocto Project is in the middle
> of some huge changes and I'm struggling with those. Equally, I did want
> to at least given some response to your upgrade which is appreciated.

> I guess we're one of the few ltp users with a cross environment. We
> have a way to launch target images under emulation and our own methods
> for controlling them and transferring files. We do all this without
> special permissions or access other than ability to use kvm. As such we
> liked being able to just run runltp on the target in the environment we
> already have.

> kirk, at least as I understand it, wants to do much of this for itself.
> That means we end up with two ways of running the target emulation
> which may or may not match. We'd much prefer just having one so we
> either have issues there or we do not but our test environment is
> consistent across all tests.

> > FYI although kirk is meant to be run on the host, doing a different connections,
> > it can also be run on SUT. Sure, there is then python3 dependency on SUT
> > (heavier than shell + it's dependencies), but still kind of runltp replacement.


> > > We're trying to test what we build. You're trying to test the kernel
> > > for regressions. They're two different things.

> > > I totally understand why you've gone that direction with kirk but I
> > > also did spell out at the time that it wasn't something which really
> > > fits in with the way we run tests, or what we actually aim to test. I
> > > was told at the time that basically, nobody is interested in what we
> > > want/do.

> > ...
> > > > I see in meta/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/ltp.py the deprecated
> > > > /opt/ltp/runltp is still being used. We want to remove it (not sure
> > > > when, but it will happen sooner or later). Any change somebody would
> > > > submit a patch to switch to kirk?

> > > It is more likely that when you drop runltp, we'll just have to drop
> > > ltp. Sorry :(. I did explain this at while ago :/.

> > It's a question if any of the users really need LTP. If yes, you could vendor
> > runltp.

> > Or, write a simple script which parses the content of the runtest files and
> > execute them. FYI for part of openSUSE testing we still use our custom openQA
> > runner which does exactly this. It would be very light: -d and -r can be
> > replaced by TMPDIR and LTPROOT, -I is supported by all tests. The only missing
> > thing will be generating of results (if you really need it, I'd recommend kirk
> > and it's JSON output).

> We'd appreciate and be able to use the json output, we already have
> json output for most of our other tests. Beyond that, as you say, we
> don't really need much beyond what runltp does though. kirk brings with
> it a number of things we definitely do not want (as mentioned above). I
> don't know if we can avoid those or not.

As I wrote previously, kirk is possible to be used as nearly drop-in runltp
replacement run on the SUT. It's not the intended use-case (we aim it to be run
on host), but still supported use case.

> > The reason we go to kirk + ltx is that in the future we plan to get rid of
> > runtests, replace them with metadata info (that will allow many things [4],
> > but you were Cc at the discussion [5]). Once this happen, runltp (or any custom
> > script / framework runner) will be broken. But this likely take long time.

> Right, using a vendored runltp would just buy us a small amount of time
> so likely isn't a long term viable solution sadly. I'd consider it if
> it were but it doesn't seem a good investment of time.

I would say adopting kirk in minimalistic way (or identify what you need and
it's still missing) would be sure safer in a long term.

Kind regards,
Petr

> Cheers,

> Richard