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

[Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>]

On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 01:49:18PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 10:41:53AM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 11:40:18AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > > One of my team members has been working with Darrick to set up a set
> > > of xfs configs[1] recommended by Darrick, and she's stood up an
> > > automated test spinner using gce-xfstests which can watch a git branch
> > > and automatically kick off a set of tests whenever it is updated.
> > 
> > I think its important to note, as we would all know, that contrary to
> > most other subsystems, in so far as blktests and fstests is concerned,
> > simply passing a test once does not mean there is no issue given that
> > some test can fail with a failure rate of 1/1,000 for instance.
> > 
> 
> FWIW we (the btrfs team) have been running nightly runs of fstests against our
> devel branch for over a year and tracking the results.

That's wonderful, what is your steady state goal? And do you have your
configurations used public and also your baseline somehwere? I think
this later aspect could be very useful to everyone.

Yes, everyone's test setup can be different, but this is why I went with
a loopback/truncated file setup, it does find more issues and so far
these have all been real.

It kind of begs the question if we should adopt something like kconfig
on fstests to help enable a few test configs we can agree on. Thoughts?

I've been experimenting a lot with this on kdevops. So the Kconfig logic
could easily just move to fstests.

  Luis