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

[Jan Stancek]

On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 6:56 PM Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> i all,
>
> [ Cc automated-testing and people who might be interested ]
>
> > 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).
>
> I'm ok for this from a long term perspective, because agree Richie it can help
> people to run tests on kernel from next tree or mainline rc kernel).
>
> It's not much work to maintain this.
>
> It'd also help people writing tests for  fanotify and IMA not having wait
> several weeks.
>
> Yes, we could add it to fanotify22 [1], but not to ima_conditionals.sh [2],
> which is shell. But adding support to shell is trivial.
>
> Acked-by: Petr Vorel <petr.vorel@gmail.com>
>
> ....
> > +++ b/runtest/syscalls-unstable
> How about having name syscalls-next? Although there can be tests which are from
> some kernel maintainer tree (it does not have to be limited to next tree),
> unstable can mean "tests which aren't fixed yet and thus buggy".

staging?

IMO separate runtest would be enough, any notes why and how test was developed
could be in comments in code, where people can find it (less metadata
to maintain),
and those comments could stay there after feature is accepted to
mainline, we just
move test between runtest files.

> > @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
> > +# Tests for kernel features which are not finalized
> > +
> > +fanotify22 fanotify22
>
> Kind regards,
> Petr
>
> [1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/ltp/list/?series=272782
> [2] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/ltp/list/?series=265664
>
> --
> Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp
>