On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 01:45:46PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 6/20/13 12:54 PM, Mark Tinguely wrote: > > Do we need a xfstest verifier dangerous group? > > > > xfstest 111 purposely damages inodes. In hindsight it make sense > > that it asserts when running with verifiers. > > But it only asserts on a debug kernel... Right, and it has done so for years - blaming verifiers for triggering the assert failure is simply shooting the messenger. > This isn't the only place where corruption could ASSERT on debug; > see xlog_recover_add_to_trans() for example. > > But if the test intentionally corrupts it and that leads to > an ASSERT that does seem problematic for anyone testing w/ debug > enabled. Yup, it runs src/itrash.c which corrupts every inode it can find. That's the reason this test is not part of the auto group - it's a test that will cause the system to stop. We've got other tests that are not part of the auto group for exactly the same reason - they cause some kind of terminal failure and so aren't candidates for regression testing. > I guess I'd vote for removing the ASSERT unless there's > some reason it should be there - Dave? I'm fine with it being removed - we catch the failure just fine. If that then makes 111 work as a regression test (i.e. doesn't trigger the bad-inode bulkstat loop it was designed to test) then perhaps we can consider making that part of the auto group, too... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
