[LTP] [PATCH v2 2/4] lib: Introduce LTP_KCONFIG_DISABLE environment variables

[Petr Vorel]

Hi Xu, Cyril,

> Hi!
> > diff --git a/doc/user-guide.txt b/doc/user-guide.txt
> > index 494652618..8d4435a28 100644
> > --- a/doc/user-guide.txt
> > +++ b/doc/user-guide.txt
> > @@ -18,6 +18,9 @@ For running LTP network tests see `testcases/network/README.md`.
> >  | 'LTP_SINGLE_FS_TYPE'  | Testing only - specifies filesystem instead all
> >                            supported (for tests with '.all_filesystems').
> >  | 'LTP_DEV_FS_TYPE'     | Filesystem used for testing (default: 'ext2').
> > +| 'LTP_KCONFIG_DISABLE' | Switch for kernel config check functionality.
> > +                          'y' or '1': disable kconfig check,
> > +                          'n' or '0': enable kconfig check.

> Maybe it would be better named LTP_KCONFIG_SKIP or even
> KCONFIG_SKIP_CHECK we do have KCONFIG_PATH so it would make sense to
> keep the kernel config related variables prefixed with just KCONFIG_

> I think that the point made by Tim Bird was that the KCONFIG_PATH should
> be standartized variable among testsuites, so it makes sense to have
> KCONFIG_SKIP_CHECK as a standartized variable as well.

Is it too bad to have LTP_KCONFIG_SKIP_CHECK and LTP_KCONFIG_PATH ?
Maybe we could change it even now.

OK, we have few exceptions to LTP_ prefix LTPROOT (I'd keep it for historical
reasons), TMPDIR (IMHO make sense), TST_NO_CLEANUP (IMHO should be changed to
LTP_NO_CLEANUP).

> [CC: Tim should we start tracking common env variables like this somewhere?]
+1

> > +	if (tst_kconfig_disabled()) {
> > +		tst_res(TINFO, "Kernel config check functionality has been disabled.");

> I would try to make more clear what has happened here, something as:

> "Skipping kernel config check as requested"
+1

> Or something along these lines.

Kind regards,
Petr