[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfstests: kludge patch for per-dir test number sorting by ./check

To: "Michael L. Semon" <mlsemon35@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: xfstests: kludge patch for per-dir test number sorting by ./check
From: Rich Johnston <rjohnston@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 13:25:29 -0500
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfstests <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <516B740A.1050607@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <5169C4FE.4030209@xxxxxxxxx> <20130414232600.GA5117@destitution> <516B740A.1050607@xxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120615 Thunderbird/13.0.1
On 04/14/2013 10:29 PM, Michael L. Semon wrote:
On 04/14/2013 07:26 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 04:50:06PM -0400, Michael L. Semon wrote:
I'm trying to get the new xfstests to run the XFS tests first, then

The question is why do you want to do this? Is there any specific
reason for running the tests in that order?

FWIW, if all you want to do is run the xfs tests, run:

$ sudo ./check xfs[0-9][0-9][0-9]



Personal preference.  I'd like to run both series of tests, sometimes
attended, sometimes unattended.  It's fine if a generic/ test crashes
the PC while running unattended, but I'd much rather the xfs/ tests have
first crack at that.

My version of the syntax was `./check xfs/[0-9][0-9][0-9]`, but that
becomes rough when skipping tests.  I'll still try your version, but

I think this is a reasonable change request and I can see how this would be very rough if you wanted to skip tests. Anyone have a reason why not to do this?


irrationality and frustration have driven me to simply adding a "mls"
group to all of the tests/<fsgroup>/group files, then hoping that a
`./check -g mls` would run everything in the correct order.  That led to
trying to figure out why the generic/ tests were running first, and so
on and so forth...



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