Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752066AbdHKA5p (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Aug 2017 20:57:45 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f42.google.com ([74.125.82.42]:37532 "EHLO mail-wm0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751456AbdHKA5o (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Aug 2017 20:57:44 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: From: John Stultz Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 17:57:42 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] selfttests: timers ksft_ stubs handling changes To: Shuah Khan Cc: Shuah Khan , Thomas Gleixner , Stephen Boyd , lkml , linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1531 Lines: 37 On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Shuah Khan wrote: > On 08/10/2017 06:10 PM, John Stultz wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Shuah Khan wrote: >>> This patch series consists of changes to: >>> >>> Move ksft_ stubs from individual tests into kselftest_stubs.h and change >>> tests to include it. >>> >>> Fix posix_timers and freq-step tests to run without ksft_ framework. >>> >>> This is in preparation to convert timers tests to ksft TAP 13 format. >>> >>> Question for John Stultz: >>> >>> The conversion work will be easier without the requirement to be able to >>> build and run these tests without ksft_ framework. So far the stubs are >>> simpler. It is might be necessary to ifdef some code paths to have sane >>> output for both KTEST and !KTEST cases. >>> >>> Would it be easier to pull in kselftest.h into timers external repo >>> (if one still exists). This is based on the observation that newer >>> timer tests don't support !KTEST case e.g: posix_timers and freq-step. >>> >>> Please review and let me know how you would like me to proceed with the >>> conversion. I am looking for answer to how important is it to continue to >>> support !KTEST case. >> >> Yea. I'm thinking at this point I'm fine with dropping the attempt to >> keep kselftest and my external timekeeping tests in sync. > > Would you like me to clean !KTEST support or leave it the way it is. > It sounds like, I will drop these patches anyway. Yea. I think its ok to drop !KTEST. thanks -john