From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg0-f67.google.com ([74.125.83.67]:43764 "EHLO mail-pg0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752415AbeFZVAK (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jun 2018 17:00:10 -0400 Received: by mail-pg0-f67.google.com with SMTP id a14-v6so8138005pgw.10 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 14:00:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 14:00:08 -0700 From: Omar Sandoval To: Bart Van Assche Cc: Johannes Thumshirn , "ming.lei@redhat.com" , "osandov@fb.com" , "tom.leiming@gmail.com" , "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH blktests 00/15] Add SRP initiator driver tests Message-ID: <20180626210008.GE1218@vader> References: <20180622221946.10987-1-bart.vanassche@wdc.com> <217335ac-80ab-fce1-8ba5-6dce11f5cef4@wdc.com> <20180626013719.GA31259@ming.t460p> <430584e255cc8d25a748bd5d76febb3fd23f8df2.camel@wdc.com> <20180626072707.555hshtnr3fgnsxk@linux-x5ow.site> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 08:24:51AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 06/26/18 00:27, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 02:16:26AM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > > On Tue, 2018-06-26 at 09:37 +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > > > > I run SRP test on Fedora 27, and not run any LIO specific commands > > > > to load it, seems it is done automatically. > > > > > > > > So looks it might not a good idea to fail SRP test if LIO is loaded, > > > > just wondering why your SRP test can't make the two co-exist? > > > > > > The LIO configuration is system-wide. Only one configuration can be > > > loaded at any given time. I don't think that the SRP tests should wipe > > > any existing LIO configuration data if e.g. blktests is run accidentally > > > on a production server. I think that wiping LIO configuration data should > > > be a manual step. > > > > I think this should be handled in requires(). I.e. check if LIO is > > already configured and then skip the test if it is. > > As far as I know the requires() function is per test and there is no such > function at the group level. I prefer to define this test once at the group > level instead of copy/pasting the same test thirteen times in each test. > > Bart. That's exactly what group_requires() is for, you even defined it :)