On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 10:39:14AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > You can't just run an internal log test then add couple of extra > external log tests and say "external logs work fine". > > > Automatic detection if the requirements are met is fine, but this doesn't > > let me easily use say: > > > > ./check -s logdev_xfs -g logdev > > You can do that if we ignore the fact that a large number of tests > need to be run on both internal and external log devices to cover > the differences in behaviour between them. > > > > And, FWIW, we already have a "log" group to indicate tests that > > > exercise the log, and that mostly includes all the tests that use > > > external logs. It would be better to tag all the tests that exercise > > > the log with "log" rather than create some new group that doesn't > > > really provide any added benefit.... > > > > So for my case would one better goal be to just run check without the external > > one and one with the external log? > > See above. Your test coverage assumptions are wrong, so what you are > trying to do really doesn't tell you whether external logs work > correctly or not. It's worse that not testing external logs at all, > because it gives the false impression that they have been > exhaustively tested and work just fine when that really isn't the > case. Makes sense, thanks. Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
