Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] selftests: Rename sigaltstack to generic signal

[Dev Jain]

On 9/16/24 09:28, Dev Jain wrote:
> On 9/9/24 23:24, Shuah Khan wrote:
> > On 9/8/24 23:16, Dev Jain wrote:
> > > On 9/7/24 01:29, Shuah Khan wrote:
> > > > On 9/4/24 23:56, Dev Jain wrote:
> > > > > On 9/4/24 22:35, Shuah Khan wrote:
> > > > > > On 9/3/24 22:52, Dev Jain wrote:
> > > > > > > On 9/4/24 03:14, Shuah Khan wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 8/30/24 10:29, Dev Jain wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 8/27/24 17:16, Dev Jain wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On 8/27/24 17:14, Shuah Khan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On 8/22/24 06:14, Dev Jain wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Rename sigaltstack to generic signal directory, to allow 
> > > > > > > > > > > > adding more
> > > > > > > > > > > > signal tests in the future.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Sorry - I think I mentioned I don't like this test renamed. 
> > > > > > > > > > > Why are you sending
> > > > > > > > > > > this rename still included in the patch series?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I am not renaming the test, just the directory. The directory 
> > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > is changed to signal, and I have retained the name of the test -
> > > > > > > > > > sas.c.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Gentle ping: I guess there was a misunderstanding; in v5, I was
> > > > > > > > > also changing the name of the test, to which you objected, and
> > > > > > > > > I agreed. But, we need to change the name of the directory since
> > > > > > > > > the new test has no relation to the current directory name,
> > > > > > > > > "sigaltstack". The patch description explains that the directory
> > > > > > > > > should be generically named.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Right. You are no longer changing the test name. You are still
> > > > > > > > changing the directory name. The problem I mentioned stays the
> > > > > > > > same. Any fixes to the existing tests in this directory can no
> > > > > > > > longer auto applied to stables releases.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I understand your point, but commit baa489fabd01 (selftests/vm: 
> > > > > > > rename
> > > > > > > selftests/vm to selftests/mm) is also present. That was a lot 
> > > > > > > bigger change;
> > > > > > > sigaltstack contains just one test currently, whose fixes 
> > > > > > > possibly would have
> > > > > > > to be backported, so I guess it should not be that much of a big 
> > > > > > > problem?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So who does the backports whenevenr something changes? You are 
> > > > > > adding
> > > > > > work where as the automated process would just work without this
> > > > > > change. It doesn't matter if there is another test that changed
> > > > > > the name.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Other than the desire to rename the directory to generic, what
> > > > > > > > other value does this change bring?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do you have an alternative suggestion as to where I should put 
> > > > > > > my new test then;
> > > > > > > I do not see what is the value of creating another directory to 
> > > > > > > just include
> > > > > > > my test. This will unnecessarily clutter the selftests/ 
> > > > > > > directory with
> > > > > > > directories containing single tests. And, putting this in 
> > > > > > > "sigaltstack" is just
> > > > > > > wrong since this test has no relation with sigaltstack.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If this new test has no relation to sigaltstack, then why are you 
> > > > > > changing
> > > > > > and renaming the sigaltstack directory?
> > > > >
> > > > > Because the functionality I am testing is of signals, and signals 
> > > > > are a superset
> > > > > of sigaltstack. Still, I can think of a compromise, if 
> > > > > semantically you want to
> > > > > consider the new test as not testing signals, but a specific 
> > > > > syscall "sigaction"
> > > > > and its interaction with blocking of signals, how about naming the 
> > > > > new directory "sigaction"?
> > > > > > Adding a new directory is much better
> > > > > > than going down a path that is more confusing and adding backport 
> > > > > > overhead.
> > > >
> > > > Okay - they are related except that you view signalstack as a subset
> > > > of signals. I saw Mark's response as well saying sigaction isn't
> > > > a good name for this.
> > > >
> > > > Rename usually wipe out git history as well based on what have seen
> > > > in the past.
> > > >
> > > > My main concern is backports. Considering sigstack hasn't changed
> > > > 2021 (as Mark's email), let's rename it.
> > > >
> > > > I am reluctantly agreeing to the rename as it seems to make sense
> > > > in this case.
> > >
> > > Thanks! I guess there is no update required from my side, and you can
> > > pull this series?
> > > >
> >
> > I can pull this with x86v maintainer ack.
> >
> > Or to go through x86 tree:
> >
> > Acked-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Gentle ping, adding all x86 maintainers and the x86 list, in case they 
> missed.

Gentle ping