From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q254BBVW102752 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2012 22:11:11 -0600 Received: from mail.sandeen.net (sandeen.net [63.231.237.45]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id lCEqjI8OtfTMe3Nf for ; Sun, 04 Mar 2012 20:11:10 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F543CDD.9030703@sandeen.net> Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2012 22:11:09 -0600 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: add freeze and dangerous groups References: <4F50FBB1.1090107@redhat.com> <20120305030843.GB3592@dastard> In-Reply-To: <20120305030843.GB3592@dastard> 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 Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: Eric Sandeen , xfs-oss On 3/4/12 9:08 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 10:56:17AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> Add 2 new test groups: >> >> freeze: tests which test filesystem freeze > > That's fine. > >> dangerous: tests which may hang or oops > > Hmmm. > >> The 2nd may be useful for automated testing to do i.e. >> >> ./check -g auto -x dangerous >> ./check -g auto,dangerous >> >> to try to get fuller coverage before running into tests >> which may panic or hang the box and stop the test cycle. >> >> I doubt I have all the potential dangerous tests, but >> they can be added later when found. >> >> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen > > I'm not sure "dangerous" is a black and white status for a test. > What if the test doesn't cause problems for upstream, but causes > problems for older vendor kernels? Does that make it dangerous? e.g. > test 104 will hang a RHEL5.x kernel, but is perfectly safe on a > RHEL6.x kernel - does that make it dangerous? It seems that many of > the recent tests for specific regressions fall into this sort of > category. Indeed, how do we answer the question "when does a test no > longer be considered dangerous" or "what test is considered > dangerous for this kernel/platform"? Well, I was thinking that if the original failure mode was a hang or oops, that's "dangerous." I agree that it's a little nebulous; if you see no value, I'm not hung up on it. maybe it's a bad choice of words... but the intention was to flag which tests have failure modes which will interrupt further tests. -Eric > Cheers, > > Dave. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs