On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 01:07:54PM -0500, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > 2) Documenting what are known failures should be for various tests on > different file systems and kernel versions. I think we all have our > own way of excluding tests which are known to fail. One extreme case > is where the test case was added to xfstests (generic/484), but the > patch to fix it got hung up because it was somewhat controversial, so > it was failing on all file systems. How about having a wiki page, either in the respective filesystems wiki or a common wiki, that show's the list of test that are expected to fail for kernel version X? This is something I'm desperately looking for for brtfs for example. [...] > 3) Making blktests more stable/useful. For someone who is not a block > layer specialist, it can be hard to determine whether the problem is a > kernel bug, a kernel misconfiguration, some userspace component (such > as nvme-cli) being out of date, or just a test bug. (For example, all > srp/* tests are currently failing in blktests upstream; I had to pull > some not-yet-merged commits from Bart's tree in order to fix bugs that > caused all of srp to fail.) > > Some of the things that we could do include documenting what kernel > CONFIG options are needed to successfully run blktests, perhaps using > a defconfig list. Or checking for specific CONFIG_* settings in a test's requires() via /proc/config.gz. This obviously won't work with kernels that don't have it. > Also, there are expectations about minimum versions of bash that can > be supported; but there aren't necessarily for other components such > as nvme-cli, and I suspect that it is due to the use of a overly new > version of nvme-cli from its git tree. Is that supposed to work, or > should I constrain myself to whatever version is being shipped in > Fedora or some other reference distribution? More generally, what is > the overall expectations that should be expected? xfstests has some > extremely expansive set of sed scripts to normalize shell script > output to make xfstests extremely portable; will patches along similar > lines something that we should be doing for blktests? I think this is the root cause of the problems you've sent out mails for this week. A lot of blktests test need filtering. See [1] as an example. [1] https://github.com/osandov/blktests/pull/34 Byte, Johannes -- Johannes Thumshirn SUSE Labs Filesystems jthumshirn@xxxxxxx +49 911 74053 689 SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) Key fingerprint = EC38 9CAB C2C4 F25D 8600 D0D0 0393 969D 2D76 0850
