[LTP] [PATCH v1 1/4] lib/tst_kvercmp: Remove old distnames

[Petr Vorel]

> On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 3:31 AM xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com
> <xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com> wrote:

> > Hi Jan, Petr

> > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 4:30 PM Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> wrote:

> > >> Hi,

> > >>> Our travis-ci has dropped or never used them, they are useless.
> > >>> So delete.
> > >> They were here before CI. They were meant for using by tests
> > >> (no CI related at all).

> > > Right, it's not just CI. RHEL5 is EOL, presumably Oracle as well, so
> > > those likely won't be missed.
> > > RHEL6 has 2 more years - Isn't this removal going to break tst_kvercmp2()?

> > I have removed tst_kvercmp2 usage for RHEL6 in
> > testcases/kernel/syscalls/inotify/inotify04.c and
> > ../kernel/tracing/dynamic_debug/dynamic_debug01.sh, so it should not
> > break tst_kvercmp2.

> OK, you convinced me it's OK to drop it.


> > Also, the current lastest ltp can't ensure that can be compile
> > successfully on rhel6 because of lack of ci, so I think we don't need to
> > still maintain the old version check.  If people want to use old kernel
> > ie RHEL6, why not use the old ltp release?

> They can, but they also likely want fixes to tests. I know there have been
> some workarounds, such as using pre-configured LTP to workaround
> autotools issue.

BTW if anybody wishes (and have time) to run some sort of stable branch in LTP
tree, why not? Not sure how many people would be interested to be worth for that
person to invest time.

Kind regards,
Petr


> > ps: @Jan, if you want to keep RHEL6, I will keep it. But two more years,
> > we still need to drop it.

> You showed this isn't significant change for those few users that still might
> exist (and EOL is coming), so:

> Acked-by: Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>

Thanks Jan for review (suppose ack is just for this first patch).

Kind regards,
Petr