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
next prev parent 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox