On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 01:21:54PM +0200, Thomas Haller wrote: > On Tue, 2023-10-17 at 11:04 +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 10:49:07AM +0200, Thomas Haller wrote: > > > The "table_onoff" test can only pass with certain (recent) kernels. > > > Conditionally exit with status 77, if "eval-exit-code" determines > > > that > > > we don't have a suitable kernel version. > > > > > > In this case, we can find the fixes in: > > > > > > v6.6 : > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=c9bd26513b3a11b3adb3c2ed8a31a01a87173ff1 > > > v6.5.6 : > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=5e5754e9e77ce400d70ff3c30fea466c8dfe9a9f > > > v6.1.56 : > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=c4b0facd5c20ceae3d07018a3417f06302fa9cd1 > > > v5.15.135 : > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=0dcc9b4097d860d9af52db5366a8755c13468d13 > > > > I am not sure it worth this level of tracking. > > > > Soon these patches will be in upstream stable and this extra shell > > code will be simply deadcode in little time. > > I am not concerned about dead code in old tests that keep passing. > The code was useful once, now the test passes. No need to revisit them, > unless you see a real problem with them. > > If it would be only little time, the tests should wait. But how much is > the right time? You are not waiting for your use-case, you are holding > back to not to break the unknown use cases of others. > > IMO merging tests is good. The problem just needs a good solution. Apologies, I don't think this kind of hints is worth. It might be a bug that resurrects in the future and then the suggestion that a commit is missing will be misleading.
