On Thu, Jul 17 2014 at 8:29pm -0400, John Utz <John.Utz@xxxxxxx> wrote: > What are the release testing criteria for things like this? From a > hand wavy perspective i am sure that the meta-requirement is 'don't > break anything'. but how is a new release proven to not break > anything? Red Hat and other vendors have their own testbeds and harnesses for testing dm-multipath. But we really could benefit from more open exchange and collaboration of a multipath test harness. Had I actually tested the patches I pointed to it'd have blown up pretty solidly, I realized something like this was needed: http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/snitzer/linux.git/commit/?h=throwaway-dm-mpath-placeholder-devs&id=77d1130e602a399ed1451edd7e91044fe9225fb6 Anyway, I really don't like that 'place-holder device' approach.. way too hackish (both my code and Hannes'). It is an elaborate workaround rather than a proper solution. I'm hopeful Bryn takes this multipath problem under his wing and fixes it for real ;) > fer instance, does anybody create dm devices, format them with XFS and > then run xfstests against them? We routinely use XFS and ext4 with git to generate load. But not xfstests... that may be useful. > or some other formalized regimen? > > or is it all kinda ad-hoc? We have the device-mapper-test-suite (dmts) for testing various DM targets (mainly dm-thinp and dm-cache), see: https://github.com/jthornber/device-mapper-test-suite I added basic support for dm-crypt to dmts; but it needs serious expanding for it to be useful.. luckily the cryptsetup userspace code has dm-crypt tests. Also, the lvm2 testsuite is another major resource that is used for testing the wide range of DM targets. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
