On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 9:07 AM Petr Vorel <pvorel@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Cyril, > > [ Cc Richie, Li, Jan ] > > > Hi! > > > > > > I this case I guess that in this case the change is so minimal that we > > > > > > can add this test into LTP once it reaches Linus tree. > > > > > Cyril, maybe we could finally merge our policy (waiting ack for you): > > > > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/ltp/patch/20220203101803.10204-1-rpalethorpe@xxxxxxxx/ > > > > > and put keyctl09 into runtest/staging now. > > > > > I guess that we still did not agree on exactly how this should be > > > > handled or did we? > > > > Isn't it enough "Once a feature is part of the stable kernel ABI the associated > > > test must be moved out of staging." ? > > > The main problem is that someone has to make sure that it happens and > > the process would be prone to errors. What I proposed instead was a flag > > that would set a kernel version in which the ABI is going to be merged > > and put the test right into the final runtest files. Then we can simply > > skip the test on older kernels or do anything else we see as a > > reasonable solution. At the same time we can easily add automatic > > checker that would look for these flags in metadata into the CI which > > would, for instance, send email to the ML once the flag is supposed to > > be removed. > OK, you're missing that kernel version. OTOH things get sometimes backported, > thus it's not error prone (if we forget to leave that flag after kernel being > released). > > Also version is hard to say if you use maintainer tree (which applies patches on > previous rc1 than what is being in Linus tree). Thus maintainer's tree would be > left, also IMHO next tree has no specific version in uname, thus we'd only > support rc from Linus' tree. > > But anyway, if all agree that this is better than both solutions Richie > implemented I'd try to find time to implement it so that we have finally a > solution. > > > In this case it does not actually matter, since the test is guarded by a > > kernel config option that is introduced by the patchset and the change > > is fairly miniminal, so I do not think that there would be any changes > > to the ABI anyways. > Correct. At this stage IMHO we can dare to merge it. > > Kind regards, > Petr Hi Petr and Cyril, I wanted to check whether there is pending action left on my end? Thanks, Yael
