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

[Cyril Hrubis]

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.

Yes, the whole reason not to prefix it with LTP_ is to have a standard
among all the testsuites. The more variables are standartized the
better.

> TST_NO_CLEANUP (IMHO should be changed to LTP_NO_CLEANUP).

Unless we want to have a standard for that one as well. Really all we
need to is to create a page with the description of these variables and
agree on a common subset. It's that simple, but someone has to actually
do it.

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz