On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 02:51 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Thursday 12 March 2009 02:06:48 Subrata Modak wrote: > > These seems to be testing the module management tools. Is there any > > feasibility of these tests being made part of ltp/testcases/commands > > directory ? > > there is no official spec for the utilities to load modules. whatever module- > init-tools supports, that is the "spec". as such, i dont think it makes sense > to attempt to integrate into ltp. otherwise we waste time attempting to keep > two distinct and unrelated trees in sync with each other and having ltp try > and support a myriad of module-init-tools versions. my head hurts thinking > about it. the testsuites here validate the *module-init-tools interface*, not > the *linux module syscall interface*. > > in fact, i dont think any of the module-init-tools tests use any kernel > related function (i.e. they dont actually poke the kernel). this would make > sense to develop in ltp: functions that actually tested the module related True. We will need this. I do not see anything of that sort under testcases/kernel/syscalls/. Regards-- Subrata > syscalls. the ABI there is static and part of the kernel. then we can even > do things like try and crash the kernel with bad arguments/modules/etc... if > running `make check` in module-init-tools crashed my kernel, i'd be seriously > pissed. if ltp did it, i'd be happy because ltp is doing its job. > -mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-modules" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
