xfstests: add freeze and dangerous groups
PATCH 1/1 xfstests: add freeze and dangerous groups
Add 2 new test groups:
freeze: tests which test filesystem freeze
dangerous: tests which may hang or oops
The 2nd may be useful for automated testing to do i.e.
./check -g auto -x dangerous
./check -g auto,dangerous
to try to get fuller coverage before running into tests which may panic or hang the box and stop the test cycle.
I doubt I have all the potential dangerous tests, but they can be added later when found.
---
group +9 -4
@@ -1,4 +1,3 @@ -# # QA groups control file # Defines test groups and nominal group owners # - do not start group names with a digit
@@ -104,6 +103,12 @@ atime # Test preallocation calls prealloc +# Test filesystem freeze +freeze + +# Tests which may oops or hang +dangerous + # Old tests that we won't spend any effort trying to run and make work # on current systems deprecated
@@ -178,7 +183,7 @@ deprecated 065 dump auto 066 dump ioctl auto quick 067 acl attr auto quick -068 other auto +068 other auto freeze dangerous 069 rw udf auto quick 070 attr udf auto quick 071 rw
@@ -229,7 +234,7 @@ deprecated 116 quota auto quick 117 attr auto quick 118 quota auto quick -119 log v2log auto +119 log v2log auto freeze dangerous 120 other auto quick 121 log auto quick 122 other auto quick
@@ -393,4 +398,4 @@ deprecated 277 auto ioctl quick metadata 278 repair auto 279 auto mkfs -280 auto quota +280 auto quota freeze dangerous
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
[email protected]
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
Quoted 3 lines · Eric Sandeen
Add 2 new test groups:
freeze: tests which test filesystem freeze
That's fine.
Quoted 1 line
dangerous: tests which may hang or oops
Hmmm.
Quoted 5 lines
The 2nd may be useful for automated testing to do i.e.
./check -g auto -x dangerous
./check -g auto,dangerous
Quoted 7 lines
to try to get fuller coverage before running into tests which may panic or hang the box and stop the test cycle.
I doubt I have all the potential dangerous tests, but they can be added later when found.
Signed-off-by Eric Sandeen <[email protected]>
I'm not sure "dangerous" is a black and white status for a test. What if the test doesn't cause problems for upstream, but causes problems for older vendor kernels? Does that make it dangerous? e.g. test 104 will hang a RHEL5.x kernel, but is perfectly safe on a RHEL6.x kernel - does that make it dangerous? It seems that many of the recent tests for specific regressions fall into this sort of category. Indeed, how do we answer the question "when does a test no longer be considered dangerous" or "what test is considered dangerous for this kernel/platform"?
Cheers,
Dave.
Signature · 7 lines
Dave Chinner [email protected] _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list [email protected] http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
Quoted 24 lines · Dave Chinner
Quoted 3 lines · Eric Sandeen
Add 2 new test groups:
freeze: tests which test filesystem freeze
That's fine.
Quoted 1 line
dangerous: tests which may hang or oops
Hmmm.
Quoted 5 lines
The 2nd may be useful for automated testing to do i.e.
./check -g auto -x dangerous
./check -g auto,dangerousQuoted 7 lines
to try to get fuller coverage before running into tests which may panic or hang the box and stop the test cycle.
I doubt I have all the potential dangerous tests, but they can be added later when found.
Signed-off-by Eric Sandeen <[email protected]>
Quoted 9 lines
I'm not sure "dangerous" is a black and white status for a test. What if the test doesn't cause problems for upstream, but causes problems for older vendor kernels? Does that make it dangerous? e.g. test 104 will hang a RHEL5.x kernel, but is perfectly safe on a RHEL6.x kernel - does that make it dangerous? It seems that many of the recent tests for specific regressions fall into this sort of category. Indeed, how do we answer the question "when does a test no longer be considered dangerous" or "what test is considered dangerous for this kernel/platform"?
Well, I was thinking that if the original failure mode was a hang or oops, that's "dangerous."
I agree that it's a little nebulous; if you see no value, I'm not hung up on it.
maybe it's a bad choice of words... but the intention was to flag which tests have failure modes which will interrupt further tests. -Eric
Quoted 3 lines
Cheers,
Dave.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
[email protected]
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
Re: [PATCH] add freeze and dangerous groups
In reply to Eric SandeenI've applied this one.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
[email protected]
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs