Re: [PATCH blktests 0/7] Further stacked device atomic writes testing

[John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>]

On 18/09/2025 05:36, Shinichiro Kawasaki wrote:
> On Sep 17, 2025 / 17:22, John Garry wrote:
>> On 17/09/2025 14:12, John Garry wrote:
>>>> It also has slightly different variables for use in the
>>>> test_device_array()
>>>> function: TEST_DEV_ARRAY and TEST_DEV_ARRAY_SYSFS_DIRS. As an
>>>> example, I made a
>>>> quick commit on top of your patches [4].
>>>>
>>>> [4]https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/kawasaki/blktests/
>>>> commit/
>>>> fae0b3b617a19dab60610f50361bb0da6e0543ea__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!
>>>> NNGuj9SVoLIwKksQudWC5ktgS6vIXTX1dGSmibli2-httSpUBfSHAIL1i2z-
>>>> aCmYSXUZxmwGZswO2KJ6Ei8gwmoYAPTl$
>>>> I will review details of your patches tomorrow.
>>>
>>> great, thanks.
>>>
>>> I'll test md/002 and md/003 today with all these changes.
>>
>> I gave it a quick spin and it looks to work ok.
> 
> Good to hear, thanks.
> 
>>
>> About TEST_CASE_DEV_ARRAY, is it scalable to index this per test case?
> 
> I'm not exactly sure what you mean with the word "scalable", but I guess
> you worry about many config lines of TEST_CASE_DEV_ARRAY[X]=Y for many test
> cases with test_device_array().

Yes

> The series allows the keys X of
> TEST_CASE_DEV_ARRAY can be regular expressions, I think many of the config
> lines can be combined into single line when they use the same devices Y.

How would that look then in the config file? More examples could help me 
see your idea.

> 
> BTW, I made the detailed comments on your patches. Other than the comments
> and the adaptations to the test_device_array(), the series looks good to me.
> Thanks!

thanks for the help

How to co-ordinate posting and merging of these series?

Shall I repost mine based on yours?

Thanks,
John