xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfstests: add freeze and dangerous groups

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: add freeze and dangerous groups
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 14:08:43 +1100
Cc: xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <4F50FBB1.1090107@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4F50FBB1.1090107@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 10:56:17AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Add 2 new test groups:
> 
> freeze: tests which test filesystem freeze

That's fine.

> dangerous: tests which may hang or oops

Hmmm.

> The 2nd may be useful for automated testing to do i.e.
> 
> ./check -g auto -x dangerous
> ./check -g auto,dangerous
> 
> to try to get fuller coverage before running into tests
> which may panic or hang the box and stop the test cycle.
> 
> I doubt I have all the potential dangerous tests, but
> they can be added later when found.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>

I'm not sure "dangerous" is a black and white status for a test.
What if the test doesn't cause problems for upstream, but causes
problems for older vendor kernels? Does that make it dangerous? e.g.
test 104 will hang a RHEL5.x kernel, but is perfectly safe on a
RHEL6.x kernel - does that make it dangerous? It seems that many of
the recent tests for specific regressions fall into this sort of
category. Indeed, how do we answer the question "when does a test no
longer be considered dangerous" or "what test is considered
dangerous for this kernel/platform"?

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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