All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To: "Nirjhar Roy (IBM)" <nirjhar.roy.lists@gmail.com>
Cc: fstests@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, ritesh.list@gmail.com,
	ojaswin@linux.ibm.com, djwong@kernel.org, zlang@kernel.org,
	david@fromorbit.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] check: Add -q <n> option to support unconditional looping.
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2025 17:48:58 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250413214858.GA3219283@mit.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <762d80d522724f975df087c1e92cdd202fd18cae.1743670253.git.nirjhar.roy.lists@gmail.com>

On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 08:58:19AM +0000, Nirjhar Roy (IBM) wrote:
> This patch adds -q <n> option through which one can run a given test <n>
> times unconditionally. It also prints pass/fail metrics at the end.
> 
> The advantage of this over -L <n> and -i/-I <n> is that:
>     a. -L <n> will not re-run a flakey test if the test passes for the first time.
>     b. -I/-i <n> sets up devices during each iteration and hence slower.
> Note -q <n> will override -L <n>.

I'm wondering if we need to keep the current behavior of -I/-i.  The
primary difference between them and how your proposed -q works is that
instead of iterating over the section, your proposed option iterates
over each test.  So for example, if a section contains generic/001 and
generic/002, iterating using -i 3 will do this:

generic/001
generic/002
generic/001
generic/002
generic/001
generic/002

While generic -q 3 would do this instead:

generic/001
generic/001
generic/001
generic/002
generic/002
generic/002


At least for all of the use cases that I can think of where I might
use -i 3, -q 3 is strictly better.  So instead of adding more options
which change how we might do iterations, could we perhaps just replace
-i with your new -q?  And change -I so that it also works like -q,
except if any test fails, that we stop?

					- Ted

  reply	other threads:[~2025-04-14  1:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-04-03  8:58 [PATCH v2 0/3] Add support for -q <n> unconditional loop Nirjhar Roy (IBM)
2025-04-03  8:58 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] tests/selftest: Add a new pseudo flaky test Nirjhar Roy (IBM)
2025-04-03  8:58 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] check: Add -q <n> option to support unconditional looping Nirjhar Roy (IBM)
2025-04-13 21:48   ` Theodore Ts'o [this message]
2025-04-15  7:32     ` Nirjhar Roy (IBM)
2025-04-15 23:28       ` Dave Chinner
2025-04-23  6:02         ` Nirjhar Roy (IBM)
2025-04-15  9:06     ` Ritesh Harjani
2025-04-03  8:58 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] check: Improve pass/fail metrics and section config output Nirjhar Roy (IBM)
2025-04-09 16:34 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] Add support for -q <n> unconditional loop Nirjhar Roy (IBM)

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20250413214858.GA3219283@mit.edu \
    --to=tytso@mit.edu \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=djwong@kernel.org \
    --cc=fstests@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nirjhar.roy.lists@gmail.com \
    --cc=ojaswin@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=ritesh.list@gmail.com \
    --cc=zlang@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.