Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1365460 > unrolled thread

Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/9] selftest: sync: basic tests for sw_sync framework

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/9] selftest: sync: basic tests for sw_sync framework Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 14:00 +0200
    Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/9] selftest: sync: basic tests for sw_sync  framework Emilio López <emilio.lopez@collabora.co.uk> - 2016-03-28 15:00 +0200
      Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/9] selftest: sync: basic tests for sw_sync framework Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 15:50 +0200

#1365460 — Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/9] selftest: sync: basic tests for sw_sync framework

Hi Emilio,

On 9 March 2016 at 15:28, Emilio López <emilio.lopez@collabora.co.uk> wrote:
> These tests are based on the libsync test suite from Android.
> This commit lays the ground for future tests, as well as includes
> tests for a variety of basic allocation commands.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@collabora.co.uk>
> Signed-off-by: Emilio López <emilio.lopez@collabora.co.uk>
> ---
>

>  tools/testing/selftests/sync/sync.h       | 119 ++++++++++++++++++
Admittedly I know nothing about the kernel selftests although copying
the UAPI header, seems to defeat the purpose of this exercise.
Shouldn't one reuse the existing header ? It would even cause issues
as the interface gets updated (iirc Gustavo changed the ioctl numbers
and/or header name with latter series).

Regards,
Emil

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1365472 — Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/9] selftest: sync: basic tests for sw_sync framework

Hi,

El 28/03/16 a las 08:56, Emil Velikov escribió:
> Hi Emilio,
>
> On 9 March 2016 at 15:28, Emilio López <emilio.lopez@collabora.co.uk> wrote:
>> These tests are based on the libsync test suite from Android.
>> This commit lays the ground for future tests, as well as includes
>> tests for a variety of basic allocation commands.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@collabora.co.uk>
>> Signed-off-by: Emilio López <emilio.lopez@collabora.co.uk>
>> ---
>>
>
>>   tools/testing/selftests/sync/sync.h       | 119 ++++++++++++++++++
> Admittedly I know nothing about the kernel selftests although copying
> the UAPI header, seems to defeat the purpose of this exercise.
> Shouldn't one reuse the existing header ? It would even cause issues
> as the interface gets updated (iirc Gustavo changed the ioctl numbers
> and/or header name with latter series).

The problem is that one cannot use the system header without having 
built and installed the kernel first, which is rather problematic for 
eg. crosscompiling or virtualization. I discussed this with Gustavo and 
we agreed that the best way forward would be to copy the interfaces, as 
suggested by kernelnewbies' wiki[0]:

"""
The correct way to address this problem is to isolate the specific 
interfaces that you need, e.g. a single header file that is patched in a 
new kernel providing the ioctl numbers for a character device used by 
your program. In your own program, add a copy of that source file, with 
a notice that it should be kept in sync with new kernel versions.
"""

Cheers,
Emilio

[0] http://kernelnewbies.org/KernelHeaders

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1365503

On 28 March 2016 at 13:20, Emilio López <emilio.lopez@collabora.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> El 28/03/16 a las 08:56, Emil Velikov escribió:
>>
>> Hi Emilio,
>>
>> On 9 March 2016 at 15:28, Emilio López <emilio.lopez@collabora.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> These tests are based on the libsync test suite from Android.
>>> This commit lays the ground for future tests, as well as includes
>>> tests for a variety of basic allocation commands.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@collabora.co.uk>
>>> Signed-off-by: Emilio López <emilio.lopez@collabora.co.uk>
>>> ---
>>>
>>
>>>   tools/testing/selftests/sync/sync.h       | 119 ++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> Admittedly I know nothing about the kernel selftests although copying
>> the UAPI header, seems to defeat the purpose of this exercise.
>> Shouldn't one reuse the existing header ? It would even cause issues
>> as the interface gets updated (iirc Gustavo changed the ioctl numbers
>> and/or header name with latter series).
>
>
> The problem is that one cannot use the system header without having built
> and installed the kernel first, which is rather problematic for eg.
> crosscompiling or virtualization. I discussed this with Gustavo and we
> agreed that the best way forward would be to copy the interfaces, as
> suggested by kernelnewbies' wiki[0]:
>
In the case of using a system header one can just `make
headers_install' without building the kernel, as mentioned in the very
same page ;-) Although I wasn't thinking that one should be using the
header already available in tree. After all this series is not
supposed to land before Gustavo's work, is it ?

From a quick skim though the selftests, I cannot see cases where UAPI
headers are copied/duplicated.

> """
> The correct way to address this problem is to isolate the specific
> interfaces that you need, e.g. a single header file that is patched in a new
> kernel providing the ioctl numbers for a character device used by your
> program. In your own program, add a copy of that source file, with a notice
> that it should be kept in sync with new kernel versions.
> """
My understanding of the article is that it refers to building user
space programs that do _not_ live in the same tree as the kernel. Am I
missing something ?

Regards,
Emil

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web