On Jun 06, 2023 / 09:45, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
>
> > > > On May 31, 2023 / 09:07, Yang Xu wrote:
> > > > > Since commit 328943e3 ("Update tests for discovery log page changes"),
> > > > > blktests also include the discovery subsystem itself. But it
> > > > > will lead these cases fails on older nvme-cli system.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for this report. What is the nvme-cli version with the issue?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > To avoid this, like nvme/002, use _check_genctr to check instead of
> > > > > comparing many discovery Log Entry output.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > The change looks fine to me, but I'd wait for comments by nvme
> > > > developers.
> > >
> > > I'm ok with this change, but IIRC Chaitanya wanted that we keep checking
> > > the full log-page output...
> >
> > the original testcase was designed to validate the log page internals
> > and that correctness cannot be established without looking into the log
> > page.
I think nvme/016 and 017 still have value even without the log-page output
checks. They exercise namespace creations and deletions which other test
cases don't.
> >
> > but given that how much churn this is generating eveytime something
> > changes in nvme-cli or in kernel implementation I'm really wondering is
> > that worth everyone's time ?
> >
> > Sagi/Shinichiro any thoughts ?
>
> Also back then I thought it'd create churn because the log page output
> is not an interface.
So, we should drop the log page output check, and it means that Yang's patch is
the choice.
Chaitanya, is it ok for you?
