Re: [LTP] [ANNOUNCE] The Linux Test Project has been released for FEBRUARY 2011.

[Garrett C. <yan...@gm...>]

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 12:21 AM, CAI Qian <ca...@re...> 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