Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] FS, MM, and stable trees

["Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 06:48:22PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> Well, we differ on the value of running regression tests, then.  The
> whole point of a test infrastructure is that it's simple to run 'make
> check' in autoconf parlance.  xfstests does provide a useful baseline
> set of regression tests.  However, since my goal is primarily to detect
> problems in the storage path rather than the filesystem, the utility is
> exercising that path, although I fully appreciate that filesystem
> regression tests aren't going to catch every SCSI issue, they do
> provide some level of assurance against bugs.
> 
> Hopefully we can switch over to blktests when it's ready, but in the
> meantime xfstests is way better than nothing.

blktests isn't yet comprehensive, but I think there's value in running
blktests as well as xfstests.  I've been integrating blktests into
{kvm,gce}-xfstets because if the problem is caused to some regression
introduced in the block layer, I'm not wasting time trying to figure
out if it's caused by the block layer or not.  It won't catch
everything, but at least it has some value...

The block/*, loop/* and scsi/* tests in blktests do seem to be in
pretty good shape.  The nvme, nvmeof, and srp tests are *definitely*
not as mature.

				- Ted