On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 2:22 PM J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 05:22:07PM +1000, ronnie sahlberg wrote: > > Hi Folks, > > > > I am Ronnie Sahlberg, CIFS.KO developer at RedHat. > > I want to come to LSF/MM to talk CIFS and network protocols with > > colleagues in the FS world. > > > > I have an idea for an informal talk I would like to give: > > "Automated testing of kernel fs modules using buildbot. Experiences so > > far in CIFS land." > > > > This would be a practical presentation showing examples of a system we > > implemented recently > > for cifs.ko to have a standard set of tests to run to ensure quality > > and (hopefully) avoidance > > of regressions for the patches that are sent to Linus for the CIFS.KO module. > > > > At this point we are starting to see very promising results on fixing > > bugs before they hit Linus tree. > > I would like to show and talk about how we set this up and why we did > > it this way. > > > > To see what it looks like right now, this is what I think will go as a > > pull request when the next merge window opens: > > http://smb3-test-rhel-75.southcentralus.cloudapp.azure.com/#/builders/2/builds/137 > > http://smb3-test-rhel-75.southcentralus.cloudapp.azure.com/#/builders/4/builds/98 > > Am I reading right--did one of those tests take twice as long as the > other? I wonder why? > > Just curious. Always happy to hear about other folks' test setups. No - these runs were quite different - two distinct groups of tests. "cifs-testing" group is longer and tests to three types of server targets, while the "azure" target tests 67 of the xfstests to Azure server target (albeit with different configurations for some of the tests). There is an additional test group for "DFS" (Global Name Space) and we will probably add more. A big hole right now is lack of RDMA ("SMBDirect") tests - in part due to lack of good options for emulated RDMA in virtual machines. -- Thanks, Steve
