On 4/25/23 10:24, Mike Snitzer wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25 2023 at 8:15P -0400, > Shin'ichiro Kawasaki <shinichiro@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Apr 25, 2023 / 16:22, Yu Kuai wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> 在 2023/01/12 9:05, Shinichiro Kawasaki 写道: >>>> Hello Yu, thanks for the patch. I think it is good to have this test case to >>>> avoid repeating the same regression. Please find my comments in line. >>>> >>>> CC+: Mike, dm-devel, >>>> >>>> Mike, could you take a look in this new test case? It adds "dm" test group to >>>> blktests. If you have thoughts on how to add device-mapper related test cases >>>> to blktests, please share (Or we may be able to discuss later at LSF 2023). >>> Can we add "dm" test group to blktests? I'll send a new version if we >>> can. >> I suggest to wait for LSF discussion in May, which could be a good chance to >> hear opinions of dm experts. I think your new test case is valuable, so IMO it >> should be added to the new "dm" group, or at least to the existing "block" >> group. Let's decide the target group after LSF. >> > It's obviously fine to add a new "dm" test group to blktests. > > But just so others are aware: more elaborate dm testing is currently > spread across multiple testsuites (e.g. lvm2, cryptsetup, mptest, > device-mapper-test-suite, etc). > > There is new effort to port device-mapper-test-suite tests (which use > ruby) to a new python harness currently named "dmtest-python", Joe > Thornber is leading this effort (with the assistance of > ChatGPT.. apparently it has been wonderful in helping Joe glue python > code together to accomplish anything he's needed): > https://github.com/jthornber/dmtest-python > > (we've discussed renaming "dmtest-python" to "dmtests") > > I've also discussed with Joe the plan to wrap the other disparate > testsuites with DM coverage in terms of the new dmtest-python. > blktests can be made to be one of the testsuites we add support for > (so that all blktests run on various types of DM targets). > > Really all we need is a means to: > 1) list all tests in a testsuite > 2) initiate running each test individually > > Mike Thanks Mike for the detailed information, we did talk about DM testcases in last LSFMM, this is really important piece of blktest that is missing and need to be discussed this year's LSFMM so we can integrate above work in blktests as right now we are not able to establish complete stability due to lack of of the dm tests as we are doing it for block layer code or nvme for example. -ck
