hi,
On Fri, Aug 23, 2002 at 11:56:59AM -0500, Steve Lord wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-08-23 at 11:28, Greg Freemyer wrote:
> > I will download the whole set and first verify the test system runs on my
> > system, then try to put together a new test for snapshots.
> >
> > The readme talks about the user providing 2 partitions, one with xfs on it,
> > and one scratch.
> >
> > I assume I should use the scratch partition to build a lvm structure on,
> > then format it with xfs.
Yes, sounds like the right approach.
> > One high level question, at the start of the test I assume I should check
> > for the correct installation of LVM and error out if it is not available.
See the _notrun shell function and how some other tests use it.
> > Is that a reasonable behavior?
>
> Yep, as you can see there are several tests which will skip execution if
> certain features are not available. Probably testing the kernel for lvm
> support (after attempting to load the module) would be a good thing.
>
> >
> > Even higher level, as I have questions, should I ask them on the list, or
> > is there a QA person there I should e-mail directly.
> >
>
> Well, you can ask on the list, or ask Nathan Scott (nathans@xxxxxxx), he
Fire away if need be Greg & I'll try to help.
Of the current tests (which can be setup to run every night using
the top of tree code with the "auto-qa" script), test 064 seems to
have a timing problem which noone has has a chance to investigate
yet (looks like an issue with the test), so you can expect that one
to fail. And I also think Steve sees 021 fail on his box - I don't
have that failure though, and I suspect a problem in the test or
the sed/awk/... shell tools from that particular distribution.
Have fun.
cheers.
--
Nathan
|