Hi Steve - On 4/14/16 10:53 PM, Steve French wrote: > Attached is a trivial patch to create two xfstest groups for cifs > > Since some of the tests in xfstests are only appropriate for local filesystems Are there tests that are wholly inappropriate for cifs (or nfs) which try to run anyway and flame out, explode, or fail nonsensically? In that case, an _unsupported_fs or a _require_local_fs might be a better way to exclude those tests. (those don't exist yet, but could easily). > and some of the "quick" tests are only quick on local, not network > filesystems, Dave has a good idea on this, I'll let him chime in ;) > create two test groups for testing cifs to make > use of xfstests easier. (I will add a similar follow on patch for > nfs after this). The first new test group "cifs-quick" > includes a set of tests that execute fairly quickly (under a few minutes > each), and second "cifs" which includes the tests which can take > much longer or are not as appropriate for quick verification of > a cifs build. fs type specifications are a little odd in groups files; udf is in there, but that's for hysterical raisins. My worry is that as new tests are added, you're going to have to keep chasing them with these new tags, and many new tests won't get run because you'll have too much "./check -g cifs" muscle memory. :) More descriptive tags and functions like _require_local_fs, _unsupported_fs, or group tags to exclude slow network tests keeps things a lot more generic, I think. The commit log sounds like terse output is desired, too? Perhaps a -q (quiet) switch could suppress all the "not run" tests, although I guess I usually want to see why things don't run, myself. -Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
