xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfstests tests not in the auto group; do we know why?

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: xfstests tests not in the auto group; do we know why?
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 23:52:11 -0600
Cc: xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20081219214411.GA18003@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <49473616.1020307@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20081219214411.GA18003@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Macintosh/20081105)
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:01:10PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Of the tests that are not in the auto group, do we know why they are not?
>>
>> 022: # Test out a level 0 dump/restore to a tape of a subdir
>> 023: # To test xfsdump/restore to tape using a directory with
>> 024: # Test out incremental dumps
>> 025: # Test dump/restore using -m option (min strategy)
>> 036: # Test xfsdump/restore minrmt to a remote IRIX tape
>> 037: # Test xfsdump/restore minrmt to a remote linux tape
>> 038: # Test xfsdump/restore to a remote linux tape
>> 039: # Test xfsdump/restore to a remote IRIX tape
>> 043: # Test out xfsdump/restore but rmv inventory prior to restore.
>> 055: # Test xfsdump/restore to a remote IRIX tape using RMT user
> 
> all these won't run without a tape, but I don't see any reason not
> to put them into the default group.
> 
>> 059: # place holder for IRIX 059 test for xfsdump/xfsrestore multi streams
>> 060: # place holder for IRIX 060 test for xfsdump/xfsrestore multi streams
> 
> These obviously don't matter right now.  Just curious, does anyone know
> what the multi-streams were and if there's any chance we might ever seen
> them on Linux?
> 
>> 080: # rwtest (iogen|doio)
> 
> Doesn't run under Linux anyway.  Not sure why.
> 
>> 071: # Exercise IO at large file offsets.
> 
> Fails for me with a not really large enough FS..
> 
>> 064: # test multilevel dump and restores with hardlinks
>> 085: # To test log replay by shutdown of file system
>> 086: # To test log replay with version 2 logs
>> 087: # like 086 but want to create more/different kinds of metadata
>> 098: # simple attr tests for EAs:
> 
> All these are pretty quick and seem useful.
> 
>> 106: # Exercise basic xfs_quota functionality (user/group/project quota)
>> 107: # Project quota.
>> 108: # Simple quota accounting test for direct/buffered/mmap IO.
> 
> We should run all these.  Although 108 currently claims that my kernel
> doesn't support project quotas for some reason.
> 
>> 109: # ENOSPC deadlock case from Asano Masahiro.
>> 110: # Incorrect dir2 freetab warning case from Masanori Tsuda.
> 
> These take long time, but seems useful.
> 
>> 111: # Infinite xfs_bulkstat bad-inode loop case from Roger Willcocks.
> 
> This trips over an assert in xfs_imap_to_bp very quickly for me.
> Another one on the todo list..
> 
>> 113: # aio-stress
> 
> Very quick one, should be default.  Also simply gets skipped without
> libaio installed.
> 
>> 115: # Test out xfs_repair_ipaths
> 
> Well, claims to not run on Linux.  Probably needs parent pointers, too.
> 
>> 116: # Test out resetting of sb_qflags when mounting with no quotas
>> after having mounted with quotas.
>> 118: # To test out pv#940675 crash in xfs_trans_brelse + quotas
>> 119: # Leaking reservation space in the GRH
> 
> All pretty quick ones, no reason to skip them AFAIK.
> 
>> 133: # Concurrent I/O to same file to ensure no deadlocks
> 
> Also a nice one.
> 
>> 136: # Test the attr2 code
> 
> Takes quite long, but seems useful.  And I need to update it for my
> latest libxfs resync :)
> 
>> udf tests are probably not auto out of principle? :)
>> 071 fails/hangs on some platforms IIRC
> 
> depends on the size of the filesystem I think.  Shouldn't hang.
> 
>> 104 hangs ...
> 
> Yeah, we should fix this eventually :) 
> 
>> "parent" requires code not committed(?)
>> "tape" group requires... tape so not auto?
>>
>> # auto - tests to be run as part of nightly qa
>>
>> I'm not sure what that means; is this group always supposed to pass?  If
>> so there are filestreams tests that don't, for example.  Maybe "tests
>> that don't hang?"
>>
>> I wonder if it'd be worth documenting this a bit, and have a group which
>> should always run & pass on the core architectures.  (and for those that
>> don't pass, do a bit of documentation on why they don't?)
> 
> I think that would be auto.  I'm all for a slight reshuffling of the
> groups:
> 
>       auto - stuff that should succeed everywhere
>       large - stuff that needs a large enough machine / fs to succeed
>               (for whatever defintion of large)

I'd rather have tests with any significant requirements just test for
those requirements, and [notrun] if they're not present...

-Eric

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>