On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 10:56:17AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > Add 2 new test groups: > > freeze: tests which test filesystem freeze That's fine. > dangerous: tests which may hang or oops Hmmm. > The 2nd may be useful for automated testing to do i.e. > > ./check -g auto -x dangerous > ./check -g auto,dangerous > > to try to get fuller coverage before running into tests > which may panic or hang the box and stop the test cycle. > > I doubt I have all the potential dangerous tests, but > they can be added later when found. > > Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> I'm not sure "dangerous" is a black and white status for a test. What if the test doesn't cause problems for upstream, but causes problems for older vendor kernels? Does that make it dangerous? e.g. test 104 will hang a RHEL5.x kernel, but is perfectly safe on a RHEL6.x kernel - does that make it dangerous? It seems that many of the recent tests for specific regressions fall into this sort of category. Indeed, how do we answer the question "when does a test no longer be considered dangerous" or "what test is considered dangerous for this kernel/platform"? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
