On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 07:05:29PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 12:38:24PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > Happy to see mptest get folded into blktests (its just bash code) -- > > but it doesn't reproduce for you so not a reliable safeguard. > > It is a lot better than not running it. And I'll look into why > it doesn't reproduce. Right now the only thing I can think of is > different kernel configs, maybe related to schedulers. Can you send > me your .config? Will do off-list. > Is adding mptests something you want to do, or you'd prefer outhers > to take care of? I won't have time in the near or mid-term. So if someone else would like to convert mptests over to blktests that'd be wonderful. Fanning out to test the various supported test permutations would be cool (meaning, test with both MULTIPATH_BACKEND_MODULE=scsidebug and MULTIPATH_BACKEND_MODULE=tcmloop ... but tcmloop is brittle due to sysfs changes vs targetcli's sysfs expectations -- but that's a targetcli issue that might have been fixed, assuming that code is supported still? Not revisited in a few months)
