On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 12:12 AM Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 09:44:54AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Oh, wait, we *already have that infrastructure*: src/fsync-tester.c > > > > > and generic/311. > > > > > > > > > Right now 311 is not "quick". > > That means adding quick tests to it without breaking it up or declaring it quick > > is not a good idea. > > Why would we need to change the group? Indeed, I almost never use > the "quick" group anymore because it doesn't mean "quickly run a > smoke test" anymore. It now just means "test doesn't take a long > time" but that still adds up to 30-60 minutes of runtime (depending > on storage) because of the hundreds of tests in the quick group. > > If you are testing crash recovery changes, then you are likely > running the "log" group to execute all the crash recovery tests, > maybe the "metadata" group, and maybe the "shutdown" group. > > So I don't think the this test not being in the "quick" group is > relevant at all. > OK. Just pointing your attention to the fact that the test generic/520 is a result of public discussion of how crash consistency tests should be aggregated into xfstests tests. I must say that I like the result in generic/520 much better than I like generic/311, because of its readability - it is easier to see which test cases are covered. Thanks, Amir.
