On 3/4/12 9:08 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > 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"? Well, I was thinking that if the original failure mode was a hang or oops, that's "dangerous." I agree that it's a little nebulous; if you see no value, I'm not hung up on it. maybe it's a bad choice of words... but the intention was to flag which tests have failure modes which will interrupt further tests. -Eric > Cheers, > > Dave. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
