[LTP] [RFC PATCH] API: Allow testing of kernel features in development

[Li Wang]

Hi Richard,

On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 7:31 PM Richard Palethorpe via ltp
<ltp@lists.linux.it> wrote:
>
> Add an unstable kernel ABI flag and a runtest file for unstable
> tests. This means we can add tests which are likely to be broken by
> changes in the kernel ABI. Without disrupting LTP releases which are
> required to be stable.
>
> Users who require stability can filter the tests with this flag
> or not schedule the unstable runtest file(s).
>
> Signed-off-by: Richard Palethorpe <rpalethorpe@suse.com>
> ---
>
> How about adding this to the fanotify22 patch?
>
>  include/tst_test.h        | 12 ++++++++++++
>  lib/tst_test.c            |  6 ++++++
>  runtest/syscalls-unstable |  3 +++
>  3 files changed, 21 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 runtest/syscalls-unstable
>
> diff --git a/include/tst_test.h b/include/tst_test.h
> index 450ddf086..ff31e972e 100644
> --- a/include/tst_test.h
> +++ b/include/tst_test.h
> @@ -174,6 +174,18 @@ struct tst_test {
>         int skip_in_lockdown:1;
>         int skip_in_compat:1;
>
> +       /*
> +        * Test is for a feature that has not been added to the stable
> +        * kernel ABI. That is, it's for a feature only available in
> +        * linux-next, an RC or some other development branch.
> +        *
> +        * This string should be set to some text describing the
> +        * kernel branch and version the test was developed
> +        * against. e.g. "5.16 RC2", "linux-next-20211220",
> +        * "net-next".
> +        */
> +       const char *const unstable_abi_version;

I'm not sure if this will bring convenience or trouble to LTP.

If a new syscall is in development (or merged in linux-next) but
drop/change in mainline-kernel. We have to adjust the test case
accordingly.

And after the feature is go into the mainline kernel finally, should
we move that from 'syscalls-unstable' to 'syscalls' and remove the
tst_test->unstable_abi_version field at the same time?

Btw, why not we just keep the unstable-syscall test case stay
in the review phase until it gets merged in mailline-kernel?
I guess that wouldn't block anything or make anyone unhappy.

> +
>         /*
>          * The skip_filesystem is a NULL terminated list of filesystems the
>          * test does not support. It can also be used to disable whole class of
> diff --git a/lib/tst_test.c b/lib/tst_test.c
> index 9b51bb5be..babb250d0 100644
> --- a/lib/tst_test.c
> +++ b/lib/tst_test.c
> @@ -1013,6 +1013,12 @@ static void do_setup(int argc, char *argv[])
>         if (!tst_test)
>                 tst_brk(TBROK, "No tests to run");
>
> +       if (tst_test->unstable_abi_version) {
> +               tst_res(TINFO,
> +                       "This test was developed against pre-release kernel: %s",
> +                       tst_test->unstable_abi_version);
> +       }
> +
>         if (tst_test->tconf_msg)
>                 tst_brk(TCONF, "%s", tst_test->tconf_msg);
>
> diff --git a/runtest/syscalls-unstable b/runtest/syscalls-unstable
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000..a87284afe
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/runtest/syscalls-unstable
> @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
> +# Tests for kernel features which are not finalized
> +
> +fanotify22 fanotify22
> --
> 2.34.0
>
>
> --
> Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp
>


-- 
Regards,
Li Wang