On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 09:12:06AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > 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. That was about how the crashmonkey tests would be integrated, not generic fsync tests should be integrated. There lots of auto-generated crashmonkey tests them and they were proposing a single fs test per single fsync test. We ended up settling on "aggregating into related groups" and generic/520 only covers one specific group - only about 5 test cases of the many, many crashmonkey test cases that were proposed. Which leaves me to ponder: what happened to the rest of the Crashmonkey test cases that were supposed to follow on from generic/520? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
