On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 07:05:46AM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 9:00 PM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 04:46:54PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > And add a few tests that use freeze to the freeze group > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > tests/xfs/119 | 1 + > > > tests/xfs/318 | 3 ++- > > > tests/xfs/325 | 3 ++- > > > tests/xfs/422 | 3 ++- > > > tests/xfs/438 | 2 +- > > > tests/xfs/517 | 1 + > > > 6 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/tests/xfs/119 b/tests/xfs/119 > > > index a1180371..b6f96601 100755 > > > --- a/tests/xfs/119 > > > +++ b/tests/xfs/119 > > > @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ _begin_fstest log v2log auto freeze > > > _supported_fs xfs > > > > > > _require_scratch > > > +_require_freeze > > > > > > # this may hang > > > sync > > > diff --git a/tests/xfs/318 b/tests/xfs/318 > > > index 38c7aa60..be93f9ab 100755 > > > --- a/tests/xfs/318 > > > +++ b/tests/xfs/318 > > > @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ > > > # Simulate free extent errors with a file write and a file remove. > > > # > > > . ./common/preamble > > > -_begin_fstest auto quick rw > > > +_begin_fstest auto quick rw freeze > > > > Not sure why these tests (318, 325, 422, 438) are being added to the > > freeze group -- they use freeze to force xfs to do background tasks > > (inodegc, initializing quota, etc), but they are not themselves > > functionality testing for filesystem freezing. > > True. I was hesitant about that part myself. > But think about it this way - > > One of the reasons is that when developers change > some code in the vicinity of freeze they want to run a fast > smoke test with tests the exercise freeze. > In this perspective, it seems useful that the freeze smoke test > will also exercise freeze when used as a trigger for internal > xfs tasks. > > That was my thinking, but I have no strong feelings > either way, so if others don't like it, I can drop this part. I'm good to with/without (318, 325, 422, 438) in freeze group. If this change doesn't bring in troubles to Darrick and others, I think you can keep current version. Thanks, Zorro > > > > > The _require_freeze additions look fine though. > > > > Thanks, > Amir. >
