xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Ubuntu Ext4 regression testing

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Ubuntu Ext4 regression testing
From: Brad Figg <brad.figg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 19:04:18 -0700
Cc: linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <50513C1A.9020504@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <50511241.2090603@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <5051142D.1050603@xxxxxxxxxx> <5051177E.6000903@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <505126D4.5030106@xxxxxxxxxx> <50512BB1.5010605@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <50513C1A.9020504@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120714 Thunderbird/14.0
On 09/12/2012 06:51 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> 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
>>
> 

No harm, no foul. We really don't mind constructive criticism. We are also
eager to get this setup and running. We will try to contribute more than
just running tests.

I do want to point out that we are using the xfstests which is a snapshot
in autotest. We do also look at the latest xfstests in the official xfstests
repo and add it in when we see a delta. We will also work with the autotest
maintainers to stay more up-to-date with xfstests.

Thanks,
Brad
-- 
Brad Figg brad.figg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.canonical.com

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