Re: [RFC v5 0/7] PMEM device emulation without nfit depenency

[Santosh Sivaraj <santosh@fossix.org>]

Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> writes:

> Typically RFC means "not ready to apply, still seeking fundamental
> approach feedback". Should I be looking to consider this for
> v5.11-rc1, or is this still RFC / should wait for v5.12?

I would like this to go in, after your comments to the previously RFC, I guess
this has moved beyond the RFC tag. I will re-send the series without the RFC
tag. Meanwhile I will continue to work on getting both modules to co-exist and
be exercised in the same build apart from getting SMART and error injection
tests.

>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 2:39 AM Santosh Sivaraj <santosh@fossix.org> wrote:
>>
>> The current test module cannot be used for testing platforms (make check)
>> that do not have support for NFIT. In order to get the ndctl tests working,
>> we need a module which can emulate NVDIMM devices without relying on
>> ACPI/NFIT.
>>
>> The emulated PMEM device is made part of the PAPR family.
>>
>> Corresponding changes for ndctl is also required, to add attributes needed
>> for the test, which will be sent as a reply to this patch.
>>
>> The following is the test result, run on a x86 guest:
>>
>> PASS: libndctl
>> PASS: dsm-fail
>> PASS: dpa-alloc
>> PASS: parent-uuid
>> PASS: multi-pmem
>> PASS: create.sh
>> FAIL: clear.sh
>> FAIL: pmem-errors.sh
>> FAIL: daxdev-errors.sh
>> PASS: multi-dax.sh
>> PASS: btt-check.sh
>> FAIL: label-compat.sh
>> PASS: blk-exhaust.sh
>> PASS: sector-mode.sh
>> FAIL: inject-error.sh
>> SKIP: btt-errors.sh
>> PASS: hugetlb
>> PASS: btt-pad-compat.sh
>> SKIP: firmware-update.sh
>> FAIL: ack-shutdown-count-set
>> PASS: rescan-partitions.sh
>> FAIL: inject-smart.sh
>> FAIL: monitor.sh
>> PASS: max_available_extent_ns.sh
>> FAIL: pfn-meta-errors.sh
>> PASS: track-uuid.sh
>> ============================================================================
>> Testsuite summary for ndctl 70.10.g7ecd11c
>> ============================================================================
>> # TOTAL: 26
>> # PASS:  15
>> # SKIP:  2
>> # XFAIL: 0
>> # FAIL:  9
>> # XPASS: 0
>> # ERROR: 0
>>
>> The following is the test result from a PowerPC 64 guest.
>>
>> PASS: libndctl
>> PASS: dsm-fail
>> PASS: dpa-alloc
>> PASS: parent-uuid
>> PASS: multi-pmem
>> PASS: create.sh
>> FAIL: clear.sh
>> FAIL: pmem-errors.sh
>> FAIL: daxdev-errors.sh
>> PASS: multi-dax.sh
>> PASS: btt-check.sh
>> FAIL: label-compat.sh
>> PASS: blk-exhaust.sh
>> PASS: sector-mode.sh
>> FAIL: inject-error.sh
>> SKIP: btt-errors.sh
>> SKIP: hugetlb
>> PASS: btt-pad-compat.sh
>> SKIP: firmware-update.sh
>> FAIL: ack-shutdown-count-set
>> PASS: rescan-partitions.sh
>> FAIL: inject-smart.sh
>> FAIL: monitor.sh
>> PASS: max_available_extent_ns.sh
>> FAIL: pfn-meta-errors.sh
>> PASS: track-uuid.sh
>> ============================================================================
>> Testsuite summary for ndctl 70.git94a00679
>> ============================================================================
>> # TOTAL: 26
>> # PASS:  14
>> # SKIP:  3
>> # XFAIL: 0
>> # FAIL:  9
>> # XPASS: 0
>> # ERROR: 0
>
> With these run reports are you trying to demonstrate the improvement,
> or the future work?

This shows what work still needs to be done. As of now there is SMART and error
injection which I am working on right now.
>
> I think it's sufficient to say that no tests ran with nfit_test
> previously, but now 26 pass. Extra interesting would be to determine
> if any current papr regression fixes in the tree would have been
> caught by an ndtest run.

So far there is are no regressions caught.

Thanks,
Santosh
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list -- linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
To unsubscribe send an email to linux-nvdimm-leave@lists.01.org