Re: futex(2) man page update help request

[Darren Hart]

On 5/15/14, 9:30, "chrubis@xxxxxxx" <chrubis@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>Hi!
>> I've used LTP in the past (quite a bit), and I felt there was some
>> advantage to keeping futextest independent.
>
>What advantages did you have in mind?

Not CVS was a big one at the time ;-)

OK, I don't mean to be disparaging here... But since you asked, back in
'09 LTP had some test quality issues and I felt I could maintain futextest
to a higher bar independently.

>
>> Perhaps things have changed enough since then (~2009 era) that we
>> should reconsider.
>
>I've been working on LTP for a about three years now and we happen to do
>quite a lot in that time. The most visible changes would be more proper
>development practices (git, proper build system, code review, LKML
>coding style, documentation, ...) and also huge number of fixes. Now we
>are trying to catch up in coverage too.
>
>> We can discuss the pros/cons there if you like.
>
>I would love to :).

Does LTP need to own the code, or can it incorporate existing projects and
a sort of aggregator?

How much LTP harness type code needs to be used?

-- 
Darren Hart					Open Source Technology Center
darren.hart@xxxxxxxxx				            Intel Corporation



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/