On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 3:24 PM,  <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi!
>> >> Add IPC syscalls test-cases from "runtest/syscalls" file also to
>> >> "runtest/ipc" for people interested in running IPC tests only.
>> >>
>> >> Run via './runltp -f ipc'.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Sedat Dilek<[email protected]>
>> >> ---
>> >>   runtest/ipc | 60
>> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >>   1 file changed, 60 insertions(+)
>> >
>> >
>> > NAK. Duplication is generally a bad idea.
>> > This have the side effect of running the same tests twice for people that
>> > run ipc and syscalls test scenarios.
>> >
>>
>> The background of this was an issue in Linux-Next.
>> The ipc test-cases were fine, but syscalls test-cases revealed that
>> sth. was wrong in that Linux-Next release.
>> For me it was not clear to also test the syscalls.
>>
>> So, what is with the idea of a "runtest/syscalls-ipc" file (my
>> original "v1" patch, this here is "v2")?
>
> I think that we can go with the v1 for now and figure out something
> better for the new test execution framework. Are you OK with that?
>

Yay!
ipc and syscalls-ipc test-cases helped here a lot to test Linux-Next IPC code.

- Sedat -

> --
> Cyril Hrubis
> [email protected]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:

Build for Windows Store.

http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list

Reply via email to