From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ted Ts'o Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] xfstests: add fiemap operation to fsstress Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 12:05:59 -0400 Message-ID: <20111103160559.GB15045@thunk.org> References: <1319849297-3506-1-git-send-email-dmonakhov@openvz.org> <1319849297-3506-7-git-send-email-dmonakhov@openvz.org> <20111102195534.GB22500@infradead.org> <87wrbhxya6.fsf@dmbot.sw.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, aelder@sgi.com, hch@lst.de, xfs@oss.sgi.com To: Dmitry Monakhov Return-path: Received: from li9-11.members.linode.com ([67.18.176.11]:57669 "EHLO test.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932244Ab1KCQGI (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Nov 2011 12:06:08 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87wrbhxya6.fsf@dmbot.sw.ru> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 03:04:17PM +0400, Dmitry Monakhov wrote: > On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 06:54:16 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote= : > >=20 > > On Nov 2, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > >=20 > > > Alex, Eric, Dave - should we add new tests with the new operation= s > > > Dmitry added, or is adding new ops to the existing tests fine? > >=20 > > One argument for adding new ops to existing tests is that it makes > > the run time of the entire test suite take longer. A QA pass is > > already taking quite a while, and it would be nice if we could > > keep xfstests as efficient as possible in terms of the maximum > > testing coverage per time spent running the test suite=E2=80=A6. > > Yes, but regression test with explicit seed option should be > preserved. Number of such test is not too big, so it is reasonable to > hardcode set of operations in such tests and let all others use new f= eatures. That's not what I was talking about. Of course there should be a way to run a regression test with an explicit seed option (although in general I think a specific test in xfstests should by default use a random seed, and have a way to easily specify an explicit seed without having to reverse engineer the test and running fsstress manually). What I was talking about was the fact we already have several (half a dozen or so, if memory serves correctly) xfstests that use fsstress with a different set of fsstress options. In some cases it makes to add a new numbered xfstest subtest, but I'd rather not find that we've doubled the number of tests using fsstress in the future, and with it, doubled the run-time of the auto or quick xfstests group.... - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel= " in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html