linux-kernel - Re: [ANNOUNCE] The Linux Test Project has been released for FEBRUARY 2011.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <201103021649.28430.vapier@gentoo.org>
Date:	Wed, 2 Mar 2011 16:49:26 -0500
From:	Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>
To:	Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@...il.com>
Cc:	subrata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Paolo Ciarrocchi <paolo.ciarrocchi@...il.com>,
	Shubham Goyal <shubham@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	ltp-list@...ts.sf.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	chrubis@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] The Linux Test Project has been released for FEBRUARY 2011.

On Wednesday, March 02, 2011 14:45:38 Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 4:23 AM, Subrata Modak
> 
> <subrata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 13:06 +0100, Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote:
> >> On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Shubham Goyal
> >> 
> >> <shubham@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >> > 
> >> > The Linux Test Project test suite has been released for the month of
> >> > FEBRUARY 2011. Please see ltp/INSTALL file carefully, as there has
> >> > been multiple changes for building/installing the test suite after the
> >> > recent changes in Makefile infrastructure.
> >> 
> >> Wouldn't make sense to integrate this test suite in the kernel source
> >> tree?
> > 
> > There was discussion like this some few years back. The idea was to get
> > some core tests from LTP to the kernel source tree. But then the idea
> > was dropped probably to avoid maintenance overhead ;-)
> 
> Putting LTP in the kernel.org sources really doesn't make sense for
> the following reasons:
> 
> 1. LTP isn't really tied to a single kernel release.
> 2. LTP isn't the only test project out there for Linux.
> 3. LTP has more stuff than it needs to have for testing out the kernel
> (well, it did more in the past before I started cleaning it up in the
> past couple of months).
> 4. Maintaining it will become a political bloodbath for both parties
> as Linux is loosely managed by Linus et all, and LTP has been largely
> developed by SGI and maintained by IBM and a few other parties like
> Fujitsu, Nokia, Redhat, etc.
> 5. Integrating LTP into Kbuild, etc would probably be non-trivial due
> to the size of LTP (but it might be easier after the Makefile
> restructuring I did a year and a half ago).

these are all very good reasons.  additional points:
 - ltp is pretty fsckin huge
 - ltp often times tests both sides of the userspace API/ABI -- between the 
kernel and the C library, and the C library and end applications
-mike

Download attachment "signature.asc " of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)