xfstests tests not in the auto group; do we know why?

[Dave Chinner]

On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 04:44:12PM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > 104 hangs ...
> 
> Yeah, we should fix this eventually :) 

Changing the locking in growfs to loop doing trylocks
will prevent the deadlock. Might take a long time to get the
lock though....


> > # auto - tests to be run as part of nightly qa
> > 
> > I'm not sure what that means; is this group always supposed to pass?  If
> > so there are filestreams tests that don't, for example.  Maybe "tests
> > that don't hang?"
> > 
> > I wonder if it'd be worth documenting this a bit, and have a group which
> > should always run & pass on the core architectures.  (and for those that
> > don't pass, do a bit of documentation on why they don't?)
> 
> I think that would be auto.  I'm all for a slight reshuffling of the
> groups:
> 
> 	auto - stuff that should succeed everywhere
> 	large - stuff that needs a large enough machine / fs to succeed
> 		(for whatever defintion of large)
> 	xfail - expected to fail
> 	xhang - expected to hang
> 		(should be empty normally, only for new testcases)

I'd say we should add another:

	fast - tests that complete in only a few seconds

so that we can run a quicker set of sanity checks while developing
stuff. The current auto run takes a couple of hours under UML, which
means a qa cycle doesn't keep up with the rate at which I want to
test new changes......

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david at fromorbit.com