| Message ID | 1634087649-2137-2-git-send-email-xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/2] kernel/Makefile: Add irq to Makefile | expand |
Hi,
yes, it should go to default scenario group as well.
Reviewed-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
Kind regards,
Petr
Hello, Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com> writes: > Signed-off-by: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com> > --- > scenario_groups/default | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/scenario_groups/default b/scenario_groups/default > index 439783dac..1dc2987d5 100644 > --- a/scenario_groups/default > +++ b/scenario_groups/default > @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ dio > io > mm > ipc > +irq > sched > math > nptl > -- > 2.23.0 I'm not sure this should go in the default group at this time. The only test in irq (irqbalance), only works on some configurations. As discussed in the test review, the user must figure out if they should run it or not. Perhaps we need a new scenario group?
Hi Richard > Hello, > > Yang Xu<xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com> writes: > >> Signed-off-by: Yang Xu<xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com> >> --- >> scenario_groups/default | 1 + >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >> >> diff --git a/scenario_groups/default b/scenario_groups/default >> index 439783dac..1dc2987d5 100644 >> --- a/scenario_groups/default >> +++ b/scenario_groups/default >> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ dio >> io >> mm >> ipc >> +irq >> sched >> math >> nptl >> -- >> 2.23.0 > > I'm not sure this should go in the default group at this time. The only > test in irq (irqbalance), only works on some configurations. As > discussed in the test review, the user must figure out if they should > run it or not. It is hard to say moving this case into default run at this time is good or bad. With an optimistic attitude, I want to add it into default run(add some comment in irqbalance01.c that irqbalance01 may fail because it needs some configuration in service or hardware)and then listen whether many users complain about this failure. ps: Many people still use runltp to test ltp instead of runltp-ng and they usually only run default group. That is a important reason that I want to add this case into default group. > > Perhaps we need a new scenario group? I don't have objection. So do you want to cover what scenario(advanced or experimental scenario group)? Best Regards Yang Xu >
Hi! > >> Signed-off-by: Yang Xu<xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com> > >> --- > >> scenario_groups/default | 1 + > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/scenario_groups/default b/scenario_groups/default > >> index 439783dac..1dc2987d5 100644 > >> --- a/scenario_groups/default > >> +++ b/scenario_groups/default > >> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ dio > >> io > >> mm > >> ipc > >> +irq > >> sched > >> math > >> nptl > >> -- > >> 2.23.0 > > > > I'm not sure this should go in the default group at this time. The only > > test in irq (irqbalance), only works on some configurations. As > > discussed in the test review, the user must figure out if they should > > run it or not. > > It is hard to say moving this case into default run at this time is good > or bad. > > With an optimistic attitude, I want to add it into default run(add some > comment in irqbalance01.c that irqbalance01 may fail because it needs > some configuration in service or hardware)and then listen whether many > users complain about this failure. > > ps: Many people still use runltp to test ltp instead of runltp-ng and > they usually only run default group. That is a important reason that I > want to add this case into default group. Well there are two wrong choices. If we add it to the default scenario people will complain that the test fails for no good reason. If we do not, the test will be largerly unused and probably bitrot over the time. However if majority here things that we should enable it by default, we can try that and revert it if we got too many complaints.
Hi Cyril > Hi! >>>> Signed-off-by: Yang Xu<xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com> >>>> --- >>>> scenario_groups/default | 1 + >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/scenario_groups/default b/scenario_groups/default >>>> index 439783dac..1dc2987d5 100644 >>>> --- a/scenario_groups/default >>>> +++ b/scenario_groups/default >>>> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ dio >>>> io >>>> mm >>>> ipc >>>> +irq >>>> sched >>>> math >>>> nptl >>>> -- >>>> 2.23.0 >>> >>> I'm not sure this should go in the default group at this time. The only >>> test in irq (irqbalance), only works on some configurations. As >>> discussed in the test review, the user must figure out if they should >>> run it or not. >> >> It is hard to say moving this case into default run at this time is good >> or bad. >> >> With an optimistic attitude, I want to add it into default run(add some >> comment in irqbalance01.c that irqbalance01 may fail because it needs >> some configuration in service or hardware)and then listen whether many >> users complain about this failure. >> >> ps: Many people still use runltp to test ltp instead of runltp-ng and >> they usually only run default group. That is a important reason that I >> want to add this case into default group. > > Well there are two wrong choices. > > If we add it to the default scenario people will complain that the test > fails for no good reason. > > If we do not, the test will be largerly unused and probably bitrot over > the time. > > However if majority here things that we should enable it by default, we > can try that and revert it if we got too many complaints. Yes, that's what I was thinking too. Best Regards Yang Xu >
Hi all, > Hi Cyril > > Hi! > >>>> Signed-off-by: Yang Xu<xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com> > >>>> --- > >>>> scenario_groups/default | 1 + > >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > >>>> diff --git a/scenario_groups/default b/scenario_groups/default > >>>> index 439783dac..1dc2987d5 100644 > >>>> --- a/scenario_groups/default > >>>> +++ b/scenario_groups/default > >>>> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ dio > >>>> io > >>>> mm > >>>> ipc > >>>> +irq > >>>> sched > >>>> math > >>>> nptl > >>>> -- > >>>> 2.23.0 > >>> I'm not sure this should go in the default group at this time. The only > >>> test in irq (irqbalance), only works on some configurations. As > >>> discussed in the test review, the user must figure out if they should > >>> run it or not. > >> It is hard to say moving this case into default run at this time is good > >> or bad. > >> With an optimistic attitude, I want to add it into default run(add some > >> comment in irqbalance01.c that irqbalance01 may fail because it needs > >> some configuration in service or hardware)and then listen whether many > >> users complain about this failure. > >> ps: Many people still use runltp to test ltp instead of runltp-ng and > >> they usually only run default group. That is a important reason that I > >> want to add this case into default group. > > Well there are two wrong choices. > > If we add it to the default scenario people will complain that the test > > fails for no good reason. > > If we do not, the test will be largerly unused and probably bitrot over > > the time. > > However if majority here things that we should enable it by default, we > > can try that and revert it if we got too many complaints. > Yes, that's what I was thinking too. OK, merged, let's see if it's ok to run for majority (we can always revert it). Kind regards, Petr > Best Regards > Yang Xu
diff --git a/scenario_groups/default b/scenario_groups/default index 439783dac..1dc2987d5 100644 --- a/scenario_groups/default +++ b/scenario_groups/default @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ dio io mm ipc +irq sched math nptl
Signed-off-by: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com> --- scenario_groups/default | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)