From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
To: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Cc: Eryu Guan <guaneryu@gmail.com>,
linux-xfs <linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org>,
fstests <fstests@vger.kernel.org>, Eryu Guan <guan@eryu.me>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] tools: make sure that test groups are described in the documentation
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2021 09:43:11 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210901164311.GB9911@magnolia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOQ4uxi7205Ae+un1w4C4Dzh9-SykL=ogHQSBH=nnVGDkPfkhw@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 07:46:01AM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 3:37 AM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > From: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>
> >
> > Create a file to document the purpose of each test group that is
> > currently defined in fstests, and add a build script to check that every
> > group mentioned in the tests is also mentioned in the documentation.
> >
>
> This is awesome and long due.
> Thanks for doing that!
>
> Minor nits about overlayfs groups below...
Heh, yeah, thanks for making corrections. :)
> > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>
> > ---
> > doc/group-names.txt | 136 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > include/buildgrouplist | 1
> > tools/check-groups | 33 ++++++++++++
> > 3 files changed, 170 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100644 doc/group-names.txt
> > create mode 100755 tools/check-groups
> >
> >
> > diff --git a/doc/group-names.txt b/doc/group-names.txt
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 00000000..ae517328
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/doc/group-names.txt
> > @@ -0,0 +1,136 @@
> > +======================= =======================================================
> > +Group Name: Description:
> > +======================= =======================================================
> > +all All known tests, automatically generated by ./check at
> > + runtime
> > +auto Tests that should be run automatically. These should
> > + not require more than ~5 minutes to run.
> > +quick Tests that should run in under 30 seconds.
> > +deprecated Old tests that should not be run.
> > +
> > +acl Access Control Lists
> > +admin xfs_admin functionality
> > +aio general libaio async io tests
> > +atime file access time
> > +attr extended attributes
> > +attr2 xfs v2 extended aributes
> > +balance btrfs tree rebalance
> > +bigtime timestamps beyond the year 2038
> > +blockdev block device functionality
> > +broken broken tests
> > +cap Linux capabilities
> > +casefold directory name casefolding
> > +ci ASCII case-insensitive directory name lookups
> > +clone FICLONE/FICLONERANGE ioctls
> > +clone_stress stress testing FICLONE/FICLONERANGE
> > +collapse fallocate collapse_range
> > +compress file compression
> > +convert btrfs ext[34] conversion tool
> > +copy xfs_copy functionality
> > +copy_range copy_file_range syscall
> > +copyup overlayfs copyup support
>
> The tests in this group exercise copy up.
> There is no such thing as overlayfs without "copyup support",
> so guess my point is - remove the word "support"
OK.
> > +dangerous dangerous test that can crash the system
> > +dangerous_bothrepair fuzzers to evaluate xfs_scrub + xfs_repair repair
> > +dangerous_fuzzers fuzzers that can crash your computer
> > +dangerous_norepair fuzzers to evaluate kernel metadata verifiers
> > +dangerous_online_repair fuzzers to evaluate xfs_scrub online repair
> > +dangerous_repair fuzzers to evaluate xfs_repair offline repair
> > +dangerous_scrub fuzzers to evaluate xfs_scrub checking
> > +data data loss checkers
> > +dax direct access mode for persistent memory files
> > +db xfs_db functional tests
> > +dedupe FIEDEDUPERANGE ioctl
> > +defrag filesystem defragmenters
> > +dir directory test functions
> > +dump dump and restore utilities
> > +eio IO error reporting
> > +encrypt encrypted file contents
> > +enospc ENOSPC error reporting
> > +exportfs file handles
> > +filestreams XFS filestreams allocator
> > +freeze filesystem freeze tests
> > +fsck general fsck tests
> > +fsmap FS_IOC_GETFSMAP ioctl
> > +fsr XFS free space reorganizer
> > +fuzzers filesystem fuzz tests
> > +growfs increasing the size of a filesystem
> > +hardlink hardlinks
> > +health XFS health reporting
> > +idmapped idmapped mount functionality
> > +inobtcount XFS inode btree count tests
> > +insert fallocate insert_range
> > +ioctl general ioctl tests
> > +io_uring general io_uring async io tests
> > +label filesystem labelling
> > +limit resource limits
> > +locks file locking
> > +log metadata logging
> > +logprint xfs_logprint functional tests
> > +long_rw long-soak read write IO path exercisers
> > +metacopy overlayfs metadata-only copy-up
> > +metadata filesystem metadata update exercisers
> > +metadump xfs_metadump/xfs_mdrestore functionality
> > +mkfs filesystem formatting tools
> > +mount mount option and functionality checks
> > +nested nested overlayfs instances
> > +nfs4_acl NFSv4 access control lists
> > +nonsamefs overlayfs layers on different filesystems
> > +online_repair online repair functionality tests
> > +other dumping ground, do not add more tests to this group
> > +overlay using overlayfs on top of FSTYP
>
> This description is a bit confusing, because the recommended
> way to run overlayfs tests as described in README.overlay is
> to set FSTYP=xfs and run ./check -overlay
>
> I'm struggling for a better description but perhaps:
> "using overlayfs regardless of ./check -overlay flag"?
Hmm. Since I'm the author of the only test that uses this tag, I guess
I'm the authority (ha!) on what the name actually means.
That test (generic/631) is a regression test for a XFS whiteout handling
bug that can only be reproduced by layering overlayfs atop xfs.
Overlayfs is incidental to reproducing the XFS bug, but AFAIK overlayfs
is the only in-kernel user of whiteout, which is why it's critical here.
It's not right to make it "_supported_fs overlay" because we're not
testing overlayfs functionality; we're merely using it as a stick to
poke another filesystem.
How about: "regression tests that require the use of overlayfs in a
targetted configuration" ?
> > +pattern specific IO pattern tests
> > +perms access control and permission checking
> > +pipe pipe functionality
> > +pnfs PNFS
> > +posix POSIX behavior conformance
> > +prealloc fallocate
> > +preallocrw fallocate, then read and write
> > +punch fallocate punch_hole
> > +qgroup btrfs qgroup feature
> > +quota filesystem usage quotas
> > +raid btrfs RAID
> > +realtime XFS realtime volumes
> > +recoveryloop crash recovery loops
> > +redirect overlayfs redirect_dir feature
> > +remote dump and restore with a remote tape
> > +remount remounting filesystems
> > +rename rename system call
> > +repair xfs_repair functional tests
> > +replace btrfs device replace
> > +replay dm-logwrites replays
> > +resize resize2fs functionality tests
> > +richacl rich ACL feature
> > +rmap XFS reverse mapping exercisers
> > +rotate overlayfs feature of some sort"
>
> I guess that works :-D
> but to be accurate, this is actually a unionmount testsuite feature -
> at selected test points in the workload, a new upper layer is stacked
> on to overlayfs, so maybe:
> "upper layer rotate tests from the unionmount test suite"?
I've changed it to 'overlayfs upper layer rotate tests from the
unionmount test suite'.
> > +rw read/write IO tests
> > +samefs overlayfs when all layers are on the same fs
> > +scrub filesystem metadata scrubbers
> > +seed btrfs seeded filesystems
> > +seek llseek functionality
> > +send btrfs send/receive
> > +shrinkfs decreasing the size of a filesystem
> > +shutdown FS_IOC_SHUTDOWN ioctl
> > +snapshot btrfs snapshots
> > +soak long soak tests of any kind
> > +spaceman xfs_spaceman functional tests
> > +splice splice system call
> > +stress fsstress filesystem exerciser
> > +subvol btrfs subvolumes
> > +subvolume btrfs subvolumes (again?)
>
> A cleanup patch to fix this typo in btrfs/233?
Will do.
--D
>
> Thanks,
> Amir.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-01 16:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-01 0:12 [PATCHSET 0/5] fstests: document all test groups Darrick J. Wong
2021-09-01 0:12 ` [PATCH 1/5] ceph: re-tag copy_file_range as being in the copy_range group Darrick J. Wong
2021-09-01 8:44 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-09-01 0:12 ` [PATCH 2/5] xfs: move reflink tests into the clone group Darrick J. Wong
2021-09-01 8:46 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-09-01 0:12 ` [PATCH 3/5] xfs: fix incorrect fuzz test group name Darrick J. Wong
2021-09-01 8:48 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-09-01 0:12 ` [PATCH 4/5] tools: make sure that test groups are described in the documentation Darrick J. Wong
2021-09-01 4:46 ` Amir Goldstein
2021-09-01 16:43 ` Darrick J. Wong [this message]
2021-09-02 4:49 ` Amir Goldstein
2021-09-02 15:03 ` Darrick J. Wong
2021-09-01 8:50 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-09-01 0:12 ` [PATCH 5/5] new: only allow documented test group names Darrick J. Wong
2021-09-01 8:53 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-09-01 21:29 ` Dave Chinner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210901164311.GB9911@magnolia \
--to=djwong@kernel.org \
--cc=amir73il@gmail.com \
--cc=fstests@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=guan@eryu.me \
--cc=guaneryu@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).