On 6/23/13 5:50 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > 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. But this test *intentionally* corrupts, right? So it's prudent to not run a test which you *know* will explode if it runs as designed. >> 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. Then maybe just part of the normal dangerous group would be enough. Except this isn't transient (today) - it's not a case where old kernels may oops, it's where it's *designed* to oops on this test, with a debug kernel. So I guess I could see a debug-dangerous group ;) >> 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... Removing it sounds like the best option then. Thanks, -Eric > Cheers, > > Dave. > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
