On Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 10:06:29AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > I've been testing with xfs/btrfs/ext4 nightly, and haven't seen any > problems with the last two. There's some very infrequent log accounting > problem that is probably a regression from Dave's recent round of log > refactorings, so once we're clear of the write race corruption problem, > I intend to inquire about that. > > Granted I also don't have hundreds-of-cpus machines to test this kind of > stuff, so I don't know how well hotplug mania fares on a big iron. > > I don't think it's valid to remove a test from the auto group because it > uncovers bugs. If test runner folks want to put it in their own exclude > lists for their own convenience, that's fine with me. Well, for me, on a GCE VM (but not using KVM), using ***any*** file system, the test is an automatic instant crash of the VM. It's a pretty clearly a CPU hotplug bug, not a file system bug. And given that the purpose of running the test is to find file system bugs, and running the test prevents the rest of the file system tests from running, of course it's on my exclude list for gce-xfstests. I don't care *that* much whether it's removed from the auto group or not, or added to the dangerous group or not, but perhaps we should add a comment that this may trigger unrelated bugs in CPU hotplug, so that other testers don't run into this? I'm also especially thinking about "drive-by testers", who might not be tracking the fstests mailing list and won't know the nuances of "oh yeah, you need to add this to the exclude list, or you may be sorry....". On the other hand, that's why I recommend that drive-by testers use things like my test runner infrastructure, and not xfstesets directly. :-) - Ted
