DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :cc:content-type;
        b=L0JX/1wuQ3C1h/m94h8/IdTr6RxaON6kAJseIrnoamZuaS9W8ihQ/3BymNVnJXpYft
         m5qoNmEbo/8FNBCjeYKJJcC20GNl9HM8aDLt4Eos/Zc04uGbZDPkEjgob5v0ne6uvPQg
         7P92YuQz//BC3z3csSduKBB/ftCzD40eJrYzI=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <190369924.284397.1299226860624.JavaMail.root@zmail06.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com>
References: <20110303142453.GA21064@saboteur.suse.cz>
	<190369924.284397.1299226860624.JavaMail.root@zmail06.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 01:04:54 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTim+AdMqho4m45oiz=-QBCsZopncraRnkD52XGQL@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [LTP] [ANNOUNCE] The Linux Test Project has been released for
 FEBRUARY 2011.
From: Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com>
To: CAI Qian <caiqian@redhat.com>
Cc: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>, ltp-list@lists.sf.net, vapier@gentoo.org,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Paolo Ciarrocchi <paolo.ciarrocchi@gmail.com>,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2711
Lines: 49

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 12:21 AM, CAI Qian <caiqian@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, I don't see what would be gained by merging parts of the LTP into
>> kernel tree. As I said before, this would probably lead to splitting of
>> the forces (and not that we have a lot to split anyway). LTP already has
>> directory called testcases/kernel/, LTP is in the git repository and we
>> have a mailing list. All that is needed is people start noticing that
>> we are here.
> Then, the approach to merge parts of LTP to kernel is to say "Here we are,
> please accept our best". On the other hand, I have noticed that there are
> many developers tend to have test code in their kernel submit changelog
> which isn't it better to make life easier for them to add those testing
> code in a proper place in kernel which in-turn to benefit in a long run.
>
>> I don't think that it's easy to say if some tests are testing
>> kernel/userspace. Sometimes the line isn't that clear.
> There are C code as in kernel coding style. Scripting code like Bash, Perl
> better to re-written in C that in a long run when there are something like
> thousands of tests to run that performance/scalabitlies/maintenence is going
> to matter just like to write an OS.
>
>> Well, requiring maintainers to sign-off your tests is kind of dull. That
>> would probably block the tests from being accepted just because
>> maintainers don't care too much/have different things to do.
> The idea is to raise a bar to get the best out of it. If maintainers don't
> care too much about the testing right now that is fine. There are many people
> they do care. A particular subsystem maintainer and its tests maintainer
> aren't necessary to be the same person because subsystem maintainer isn't
> necessary to be the best one to find/acknowledge defeats for code he maintained.
>
>> You can't easily prove that something is best ;).
> The best will at lest be reviewed by eyes from the kernel community and
> experts, and will be the one to be accepted by the community.
>
>> Once again, LTP does exist so reference to LTP is not ambiguous. Yes,
>> it's, for historical reasons, hosted on sourceforge rather than
>> kernel.org. But there it is.
> By accepted into the kernel, it certainly make it easier to reference
> without dealing with two projects and trees.

I'm sorry for even starting this bikeshed discussion. Let's just bury
the hatchet and get back to work on more fruitful things.
Thanks,
-Garrett
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/