Re: [PATCH 0/2] liburing: test: replace ublk test with kernel selftests

[Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 07:51:02AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 3/19/25 7:47 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On 3/19/25 3:26 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
> >> Hi Jens,
> >>
> >> The 1st patch removes the liburing ublk test source, and the 2nd patch
> >> adds the test back with the kernel ublk selftest source.
> >>
> >> The original test case is covered, and io_uring kernel fixed buffer and
> >> ublk zero copy is covered too.
> >>
> >> Now the ublk source code is one generic ublk server implementation, and
> >> test code is shell script, this way is flexible & easy to add new tests.
> > 
> > Fails locally here, I think you'll need a few ifdefs for having a not
> > completely uptodate header:
> > 
> > ublk//kublk.c: In function ?cmd_dev_get_features?:
> > ublk//kublk.c:997:30: error: ?UBLK_F_USER_RECOVERY_FAIL_IO? undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean ?UBLK_F_USER_RECOVERY_REISSUE??
> >   997 |                 [const_ilog2(UBLK_F_USER_RECOVERY_FAIL_IO)] = "RECOVERY_FAIL_IO",
> >       |                              ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > 
> > With
> > 
> > #ifndef UBLK_F_USER_RECOVERY_FAIL_IO
> > #define UBLK_F_USER_RECOVERY_FAIL_IO   (1ULL << 9)
> > #endif
> > 
> > added it works as expected for me, but might not be a bad idea to
> > include a few more? Looks like there's a good spot for it in kublk.h
> > where there's already something for UBLK_U_IO_REGISTER_IO_BUF.
> > 
> > Outside of that, when running this in my usual vm testing, I see:
> > 
> > Running test ublk/test_stress_02.sh                                 modprobe: FATAL: Module ublk_drv not found in directory /lib/modules/6.14.0-rc7-00360-ge07e8363c5e8
> > 
> > as I have ublk built-in. The test still runs, but would be nice to
> > get rid of that complaint.
> 
> Oh, and looks like it should also skip the test if an argument is
> passed in. My usual setup has 4-5 devices/paths defined for
> testing, and tests that don't take a file argument should just
> skip.
> 
> Forgot to mention, that unifying the selftests and liburing test
> is a really good idea! Will make it easier to sync them up and
> get coverage both ways.

Yeah, the kernel selftest side can be thought as upstream, :-)

I just sent three ublk kernel selftest patches, which covers all
the above problems. With the three changes, only three lines of code
change on test_common.sh is needed for liburing test:

```
#liburing
UBLK_TEST_SHOW_RESULT=0
UBLK_SKIP_CODE=77
[ $# -ne 0 ] && exit "$UBLK_SKIP_CODE"
```

Thanks,
Ming