On 3/4/12 9:08 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> 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
>> 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"?
Well, I was thinking that if the original failure mode was a hang or oops,
I agree that it's a little nebulous; if you see no value, I'm not hung up on it.
maybe it's a bad choice of words... but the intention was to flag which tests
have failure modes which will interrupt further tests.