[LTP] [PATCH 2/2] scenario_groups/default: Add irq into default run

[Petr Vorel]

Hi all,

> Hi Cyril
> > Hi!
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Yang Xu<xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>    scenario_groups/default | 1 +
> >>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

> >>>> diff --git a/scenario_groups/default b/scenario_groups/default
> >>>> index 439783dac..1dc2987d5 100644
> >>>> --- a/scenario_groups/default
> >>>> +++ b/scenario_groups/default
> >>>> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ dio
> >>>>    io
> >>>>    mm
> >>>>    ipc
> >>>> +irq
> >>>>    sched
> >>>>    math
> >>>>    nptl
> >>>> --
> >>>> 2.23.0

> >>> I'm not sure this should go in the default group at this time. The only
> >>> test in irq (irqbalance), only works on some configurations. As
> >>> discussed in the test review, the user must figure out if they should
> >>> run it or not.

> >> It is hard to say moving this case into default run at this time is good
> >> or bad.

> >> With an optimistic attitude, I want to add it into default run(add some
> >> comment in irqbalance01.c that irqbalance01 may fail because it needs
> >> some configuration in service or hardware)and then listen whether many
> >> users complain about this failure.

> >> ps: Many people still use runltp to test ltp instead of runltp-ng and
> >> they usually only run default group. That is a important reason that I
> >> want to add this case into default group.

> > Well there are two wrong choices.

> > If we add it to the default scenario people will complain that the test
> > fails for no good reason.

> > If we do not, the test will be largerly unused and probably bitrot over
> > the time.

> > However if majority here things that we should enable it by default, we
> > can try that and revert it if we got too many complaints.
> Yes, that's what I was thinking too.

OK, merged, let's see if it's ok to run for majority (we can always revert it).

Kind regards,
Petr

> Best Regards
> Yang Xu