From: James T. <tak...@us...> - 2011-08-25 17:28:40
|
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 12:14:03, Cyril Hrubis <ch...@su...> wrote: > To: Lucy Liang <lg...@li...> Hi Cyril, Lucy was a summer intern here at IBM, but her internship has ended. I'll try to resolve any open issues with her pounder patch submission. Please direct any future comments to me. > > diff --git a/tools/pounder21/build_scripts/ltp b/tools/pounder21/build_scripts/ltp > > index 68dcdbe..70defe4 100755 > > --- a/tools/pounder21/build_scripts/ltp > > +++ b/tools/pounder21/build_scripts/ltp > > @@ -55,23 +55,24 @@ fi > > > > # NAK the setregid EPERM -> EINVAL patch, because it's > > # broken on 2.6! May be fixed some time after 20050804 release. > > -if [ ! -e "testcases/kernel/syscalls/setregid/setregid02.c.pounder" ]; then > > - echo "Patching some holes in ltp..." > > - cp -pRdu testcases/kernel/syscalls/setregid/setregid02.c testcases/kernel/syscalls/setregid/setregid02.c.pounder > > - patch -p1 < $POUNDER_SRCDIR/ltp-setregid-fix.patch > > - RESULT=$? > > - if [ $RESULT -ne 0 ]; then > > - echo Patching failed. > > - exit 1 > > - fi > > -fi > > +#if [ ! -e "testcases/kernel/syscalls/setregid/setregid02.c.pounder" ]; then > > +# echo "Patching some holes in ltp..." > > +# cp -pRdu testcases/kernel/syscalls/setregid/setregid02.c testcases/kernel/syscalls/setregid/setregid02.c.pounder > > +# patch -p1 < $POUNDER_SRCDIR/ltp-setregid-fix.patch > > +# RESULT=$? > > +# if [ $RESULT -ne 0 ]; then > > +# echo Patching failed. > > +# exit 1 > > +# fi > > +#fi > > Patching LTP before build from this build script is not really long term > solution. We should get these patches applied to LTP (as it should have > been done long time ago) and drop this logic entrirely. I agree that this smells like a workaround, not a long term solution. I'll investigate whether the setregid02 patch is still needed or not, then I'll resubmit this patch. |
From: James T. <tak...@us...> - 2011-08-25 17:48:24
|
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 12:17:15, Cyril Hrubis <ch...@su...> wrote: > > I'm not happy to have tarballs stored in the git for several reasons. Is > this really needed? Shouldn't having directories with files serve the > same purpose? The tarball form makes more sense since we want to select and extract only one of the available schedules. These schedule tarballs already exist in the git repository. Lucy's patch merely moved them all into their own subdirectory to improve the file organization. In fact, she even removed one, so now there are only 3 instead of 4 :-) |
From: Cyril H. <ch...@su...> - 2011-08-26 11:33:30
|
Hi! > > I'm not happy to have tarballs stored in the git for several reasons. Is > > this really needed? Shouldn't having directories with files serve the > > same purpose? > > The tarball form makes more sense since we want to select and extract > only one of the available schedules. Hmm, but wouldn't copying directory, or even better symlinking it do the same job? > These schedule tarballs already exist in the git repository. Lucy's > patch merely moved them all into their own subdirectory to improve the > file organization. In fact, she even removed one, so now there are > only 3 instead of 4 :-) Well, that is exactly the the problem with tarballs, you can't say this for sure unless you checks by hand. -- Cyril Hrubis ch...@su... |
From: Cyril H. <ch...@su...> - 2011-09-08 11:00:53
|
Hi! Any update on this? I could probably live with the tarbals, but we should at least do something about the LTP patches. -- Cyril Hrubis ch...@su... |
From: James T. <tak...@us...> - 2011-09-08 23:02:26
|
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 13:01, Cyril Hrubis <ch...@su...> wrote: > Hi! > Any update on this? I could probably live with the tarbals... I'm happy to hear you're feeling flexible about this one. I started fiddling with turning those into subdirs, but found there was being some ripple effect into another script which was turning this into a bigger job than I currently have time for. I was going to counter-propose that we just leave things as-is for now -- i.e., leave the existing tarballs where they currently exist -- but I'd be quite pleased if you'd accept moving them to their new home since the new organization makes it easier to understand how to use pounder. > but we > should at least do something about the LTP patches. I just perused this issue more closely, and realize that the diff is already doing what you want. The existing script patches the setregid02 subtest, but Lucy's patch comments out those lines. I could delete them completely rather than commenting them out, but I'd appreciate keeping the comments for now in case I encounter the original problem with some older distro. |
From: Cyril H. <ch...@su...> - 2011-09-09 12:30:52
|
Hi! > > Any update on this? I could probably live with the tarbals... > > I'm happy to hear you're feeling flexible about this one. I started > fiddling with turning those into subdirs, but found there was being some > ripple effect into another script which was turning this into a bigger > job than I currently have time for. I was going to counter-propose that > we just leave things as-is for now -- i.e., leave the existing tarballs > where they currently exist -- but I'd be quite pleased if you'd accept > moving them to their new home since the new organization makes it > easier to understand how to use pounder. I would still rather see this as dirs, but if the change is more than just untar them and change one script, I could live with the tarballs for now. > > but we > > should at least do something about the LTP patches. > > I just perused this issue more closely, and realize that the diff is > already doing what you want. The existing script patches the setregid02 > subtest, but Lucy's patch comments out those lines. > > I could delete them completely rather than commenting them out, but > I'd appreciate keeping the comments for now in case I encounter the > original problem with some older distro. Well there are two patches, one that is used to add some include lines in case of debian distro and actually that one is still in place and even may be correct. Could you check if this one is correct, int this case we would just apply it to LTP and drop it from pounder entirely. PS: the second patch for setregid is not likely to apply now as there were some changes in the source code. -- Cyril Hrubis ch...@su... |
From: James T. <tak...@us...> - 2011-09-09 18:03:31
|
On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 14:31, Cyril Hrubis <ch...@su...> wrote: > > I would still rather see this as dirs, but if the change is more than > just untar them and change one script, I could live with the tarballs > for now. Cool. Thanks for your flexibility. > > I just perused this issue more closely, and realize that the diff is > > already doing what you want. The existing script patches the setregid02 > > subtest, but Lucy's patch comments out those lines. > > > Well there are two patches, one that is used to add some include lines > in case of debian distro and actually that one is still in place and > even may be correct. Could you check if this one is correct, int this > case we would just apply it to LTP and drop it from pounder entirely. It took me quite awhile to find this second patch you mention. I thought you were talking about something in Lucy's patch set, but I finally figured out that it's a separate pounder issue that you feel her patch set should address right now. The main mission of Lucy's patch set is to enable pounder usage for the world. Being able to run LTP side by side with your own in-house tests and applications is a handy framework, and I'm hoping that Lucy's patch set will help to grow a community of happy pounder users. If you could defer this issue for now, it might enable others to contribute towards fixing this problem (and perhaps the tarball issue as well). That was our hope, anyhow, when we sponsored Lucy's internship. In addition, there's a sort of silver lining to keeping this patch around. It shows us how to apply temporary workarounds to LTP while we're eagerly awaiting the next monthly release :-) Seriously, though, if it falls onto my shoulders to fix it right now, it's going to take awhile for me to figure out what Debian release necessitated ltp-debian-build.patch. The bottom line is that I agree with you that ltp-debian-build.patch should go away (or move into test_1_to_1_connect.c if it's actually necesary). But I'd like to defer that as a TODO list item for now. > PS: the second patch for setregid is not likely to apply now as there > were some changes in the source code. Understood. I wanted to keep the comment around nevertheless as a reminder that we used to do something special here if I hit any related problems. |
From: James T. <tak...@us...> - 2011-10-27 17:48:23
|
On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 10:58, James Takahashi <tak...@us...> wrote: > > The main mission of Lucy's patch set is to enable pounder usage for > the world. Being able to run LTP side by side with your own in-house > tests and applications is a handy framework, and I'm hoping that Lucy's > patch set will help to grow a community of happy pounder users. If you > could defer this issue for now, it might enable others to contribute > towards fixing this problem (and perhaps the tarball issue as well). > Hi Cyril, Any chance that you can accept these pounder patches? Even though they don't fix everything you'd like, they definitely move pounder a quantum leap forward in enabling others to use pounder. |
From: Cyril H. <ch...@su...> - 2011-11-02 17:33:57
|
Hi! > > The main mission of Lucy's patch set is to enable pounder usage for > > the world. Being able to run LTP side by side with your own in-house > > tests and applications is a handy framework, and I'm hoping that Lucy's > > patch set will help to grow a community of happy pounder users. If you > > could defer this issue for now, it might enable others to contribute > > towards fixing this problem (and perhaps the tarball issue as well). > > > Hi Cyril, > > Any chance that you can accept these pounder patches? Even though > they don't fix everything you'd like, they definitely move pounder > a quantum leap forward in enabling others to use pounder. Thanks for the reminder, merged. And looking forward to future patches for the rest of the issues ;). -- Cyril Hrubis ch...@su... |
From: Cyril H. <ch...@su...> - 2011-08-26 11:35:39
|
Hi! > Lucy was a summer intern here at IBM, but her internship has ended. I'll > try to resolve any open issues with her pounder patch submission. Please > direct any future comments to me. Okay. > > Patching LTP before build from this build script is not really long term > > solution. We should get these patches applied to LTP (as it should have > > been done long time ago) and drop this logic entrirely. > > I agree that this smells like a workaround, not a long term solution. > > I'll investigate whether the setregid02 patch is still needed or not, > then I'll resubmit this patch. Ideally if these patches are needed, they should be merged into LTP and dropped from here. (I've found at least two LTP patches there). -- Cyril Hrubis ch...@su... |