On Wed, 2019-02-06 at 05:21 +-0000, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote: +AD4 For storage track, we would like to propose a session dedicated to blktests. It is a great +AD4 opportunity for the storage developers to gather and have a discussion about:- +AD4 +AD4 1. Current status of the blktests framework. +AD4 2. Any new/missing features that we want to add in the blktests. +AD4 3. Any new kernel features that could be used to make testing easier? +AD4 E.g. Implementing new features in the null+AF8-blk.c in order to have device +AD4 independent complete test coverage. (e.g. adding discard command for null+AF8-blk or any +AD4 other specific REQ+AF8-OP). Discussion about having any new tracepoint events in the block layer. +AD4 4. Any new test cases/categories which are lacking in the blktests framework. Hi Chaitanya, Thanks for having proposed this topic. I'd like to add a fifth item to the agenda, namely blktests maintainership. The following could e.g. be discussed: - How many maintainers should the blktests project have? A single maintainer or also one or more co-maintainers? - Is it acceptable that patches get accepted in the blktests repository that break the continuous integration tests? If so, why do we even have continuous integration tests? See also +ACIAWw-PATCH+AF0 Unbreak the continuous integration build+ACI (https://marc.info/?l+AD0-linux-block+ACY-m+AD0-154990323618159). - How long should it take before a blktests maintainer provides feedback on blktests patches and pull requests? Is it considered acceptable that it takes more than four weeks to process a pull request that is in perfect shape? See e.g. https://github.com/osandov/blktests/pull/44. Bart.
