Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] check: Add -q <n> option to support unconditional looping.

["Nirjhar Roy (IBM)" <nirjhar.roy.lists@gmail.com>]

On 4/14/25 03:18, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> 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:

Yes, the motivation to introduce -q was to:

1. Make the re-run faster and not re-format the device. -i re-formats 
the device and hence is slightly slower.

2. To unconditionally loop a test - useful for scenarios when a flaky 
test doesn't fail for the first time (something that -L) does.

So, are saying that re-formatting a disk on every run, something that -i 
does, doesn't have much value and can be removed?

>
> 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?

So -I won't re-format the devices during the loop? is that what your 
suggestion is?

--NR

>
> 					- Ted

-- 
Nirjhar Roy
Linux Kernel Developer
IBM, Bangalore