On 6/23/13 5:50 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 01:45:46PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 6/20/13 12:54 PM, Mark Tinguely wrote:
>>> Do we need a xfstest verifier dangerous group?
>>> xfstest 111 purposely damages inodes. In hindsight it make sense
>>> that it asserts when running with verifiers.
>> But it only asserts on a debug kernel...
> Right, and it has done so for years - blaming verifiers for
> triggering the assert failure is simply shooting the messenger.
But this test *intentionally* corrupts, right? So it's prudent
to not run a test which you *know* will explode if it runs
>> This isn't the only place where corruption could ASSERT on debug;
>> see xlog_recover_add_to_trans() for example.
>> But if the test intentionally corrupts it and that leads to
>> an ASSERT that does seem problematic for anyone testing w/ debug
> Yup, it runs src/itrash.c which corrupts every inode it can find.
> That's the reason this test is not part of the auto group - it's
> a test that will cause the system to stop. We've got other tests
> that are not part of the auto group for exactly the same reason -
> they cause some kind of terminal failure and so aren't candidates
> for regression testing.
Then maybe just part of the normal dangerous group would be enough.
Except this isn't transient (today) - it's not a case where old kernels
may oops, it's where it's *designed* to oops on this test, with a debug
So I guess I could see a debug-dangerous group ;)
>> I guess I'd vote for removing the ASSERT unless there's
>> some reason it should be there - Dave?
> I'm fine with it being removed - we catch the failure just fine. If
> that then makes 111 work as a regression test (i.e. doesn't trigger
> the bad-inode bulkstat loop it was designed to test) then perhaps we
> can consider making that part of the auto group, too...
Removing it sounds like the best option then.