From: Shinichiro Kawasaki <shinichiro.kawasaki@wdc.com>
To: Stephen Zhang <starzhangzsd@gmail.com>
Cc: Daniel Wagner <dwagner@suse.de>,
"hch@infradead.org" <hch@infradead.org>,
Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>,
Coly Li <colyli@fnnas.com>,
Johannes Thumshirn <Johannes.Thumshirn@wdc.com>,
"linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org" <linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH blktests v5 2/3] bcache: add bcache/002
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2026 01:44:22 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <abIX7n_ygun4zq6I@shinmob> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANubcdVc-cP4dAZs_mkTG3rYVYa5Z2ihd3Crp2J-GRDUYpGGhg@mail.gmail.com>
On Mar 10, 2026 / 17:29, Stephen Zhang wrote:
> Shinichiro Kawasaki <shinichiro.kawasaki@wdc.com> 于2026年3月7日周六 18:24写道：
> >
> ...
> >
> > May I ask you to share what kind of devices you used to recreate the failure?
> > Also, could you share the kernel .config to recreate the failure? I would like
> > use them to recreate the failure on my test system.
> >
>
> Hmm, I tried to reproduce the issue again but couldn't.
Stephen, thanks. Then I think the left key difference between bcache/001 and
this new bcache/002 is 10 seconds fio random read. IMO, it's the better to drop
this patch, and create another test case that intend to exercise bcache driver
using fio workloads. To add more value to the test case, I think verify workload
is the better, that will check write, read, as well as no data corruption.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-12 1:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-05 15:01 [PATCH blktests v5 0/3] bcache: add initial test cases Daniel Wagner
2026-03-05 15:01 ` [PATCH blktests v5 1/3] bcache: add bcache/001 Daniel Wagner
2026-03-06 9:49 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2026-03-06 12:15 ` Shinichiro Kawasaki
2026-03-06 12:45 ` Daniel Wagner
2026-03-05 15:01 ` [PATCH blktests v5 2/3] bcache: add bcache/002 Daniel Wagner
2026-03-06 9:59 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2026-03-06 12:27 ` Shinichiro Kawasaki
2026-03-06 13:14 ` Daniel Wagner
2026-03-07 10:24 ` Shinichiro Kawasaki
2026-03-10 9:29 ` Stephen Zhang
2026-03-12 1:44 ` Shinichiro Kawasaki [this message]
2026-03-05 15:01 ` [PATCH blktests v5 3/3] doc: document how to configure bcache tests Daniel Wagner
2026-03-06 10:00 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2026-03-07 10:27 ` [PATCH blktests v5 0/3] bcache: add initial test cases Shinichiro Kawasaki
2026-03-09 9:40 ` Daniel Wagner
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=abIX7n_ygun4zq6I@shinmob \
--to=shinichiro.kawasaki@wdc.com \
--cc=Johannes.Thumshirn@wdc.com \
--cc=colyli@fnnas.com \
--cc=dwagner@suse.de \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=kent.overstreet@linux.dev \
--cc=linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=starzhangzsd@gmail.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox