From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6877F7F37 for ; Sun, 23 Jun 2013 17:51:06 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED2D7AC001 for ; Sun, 23 Jun 2013 15:51:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.145]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id vSsNIDhxTCOXZC3I for ; Sun, 23 Jun 2013 15:50:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 08:50:53 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: group for tests that are dangerous for verifiers? Message-ID: <20130623225053.GA29376@dastard> References: <51C341E1.8000302@sgi.com> <51C49F5A.3020907@sandeen.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <51C49F5A.3020907@sandeen.net> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Eric Sandeen Cc: Mark Tinguely , xfs-oss On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 01:45:46PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 6/20/13 12:54 PM, Mark Tinguely wrote: > > Do we need a xfstest verifier dangerous group? > > > > xfstest 111 purposely damages inodes. In hindsight it make sense > > that it asserts when running with verifiers. > > But it only asserts on a debug kernel... Right, and it has done so for years - blaming verifiers for triggering the assert failure is simply shooting the messenger. > This isn't the only place where corruption could ASSERT on debug; > see xlog_recover_add_to_trans() for example. > > But if the test intentionally corrupts it and that leads to > an ASSERT that does seem problematic for anyone testing w/ debug > enabled. Yup, it runs src/itrash.c which corrupts every inode it can find. That's the reason this test is not part of the auto group - it's a test that will cause the system to stop. We've got other tests that are not part of the auto group for exactly the same reason - they cause some kind of terminal failure and so aren't candidates for regression testing. > I guess I'd vote for removing the ASSERT unless there's > some reason it should be there - Dave? I'm fine with it being removed - we catch the failure just fine. If that then makes 111 work as a regression test (i.e. doesn't trigger the bad-inode bulkstat loop it was designed to test) then perhaps we can consider making that part of the auto group, too... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs