On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 05:03:44PM +0100, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
On 24/02/2023 13:58, Beata Michalska wrote:
diff --git a/runtest/syscalls_musl.skip b/runtest/syscalls_musl.skip new file mode 100644 index 000000000..92c952dac --- /dev/null +++ b/runtest/syscalls_musl.skip @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@ +# All the following tests from the syscalls test list are failing in a standard +# Aarch64 Musl-based distribution (Alpine Linux). Thus they depend on Musl
Is Alpine Linux a standard distribution?
I would say it is quite well known: it's the second most downloaded Docker image for a Linux distribution (Behind Ubuntu) and a lot of others use it as a base, for example. It's also somewhat supported by LTP as it's part of the build CI. But I guess it really depends on what you consider standard ?
I think I got caught up with exactly that. Note I am not debating that Alpine is a well-established distribution. How about rephrasing it a bit as of: "are failing on standard Aarch64 Linux Musl-based distribution' and skipping the mentioning of Alpine at all ? Those are to be affected by Musl implementation, in the end ?
Might be worth pointing out the existence of ci/alpine.sh, linked from doc/supported-kernel-libc-versions.txt. So I'd say mentioning Alpine is relevant, though indeed it is really about Musl in the end.
The list of tests from that file does not actually overlap with the skip list proposed (?), so I am not convinced that it is a good argument to mention Alpine explicitly. Also there seems to be no trace (?) of those tests failing on a setup Alpine + Musl (which is why I was wondering if there are any reports). If Musl is the culprit for those failures than why attributing that to any specific distribution ? Especially that Alpine is not the only one being used for testing , and not the only one (?) where those tests fail ? I do not mind keeping mentioning Alpine, but I'd rather make the message clear. Or am I completely missing the point here which might very much be the case, so bare with me , please.
--- BR B.
Kevin