On 9/12/12 7:41 PM, Brad Figg wrote:
> Eric,
>
> Thanks for taking the time to point this out. We will adjust our testing
> accordingly.
> We initially tried to run xfstest against ext2, ext3, ext4, xfs and btrfs. We
> are also
> trying to get these tests to run on several different kernel versions as you
> can
> see from our test results. We were running into issues on different kernels
> and various
> file-systems while getting our act together, we did this as a band-aid.
I see.
> I accept that we have some things to learn w.r.t. running this test suite. We
> will work
> to run the xfstests "as is" without any outside "intelligence". We do
> recognise that
> is a dynamic set of tests that people are adding to regularly.
>
> I am not attempting to get just a series of "pass" results. If that were my
> goal
> I could accomplish it much easier and would not have engaged with the
> community
> on the mailing list. We want to help where we can and will accept constructive
> criticism.
Sorry, it sounds like I came across too strong there - it was just a little
worrying to see failing or problematic tests disabled or otherwise artificially
restricted.
I'm actually very excited to see you setting up ongoing, public testing using
xfstests, I think it'll be a great benefit, especially if there's a way to see
a particular test's results across several kernel versions and/or filesystems
and/or architectures, so that patterns of failure can emerge.
If you find that xfstests is missing some feature or behavior which would
facilitate testing in the automated environment, please do let us know what you
need - or send patches. :)
Thanks,
-Eric
> Brad
>
|