From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q8D23LRZ091750 for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 21:03:21 -0500 Received: from youngberry.canonical.com (youngberry.canonical.com [91.189.89.112]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id vOf15RvDbG6AFGgN for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 19:04:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <50513F22.3040201@canonical.com> Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 19:04:18 -0700 From: Brad Figg MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Ubuntu Ext4 regression testing References: <50511241.2090603@canonical.com> <5051142D.1050603@redhat.com> <5051177E.6000903@canonical.com> <505126D4.5030106@redhat.com> <50512BB1.5010605@canonical.com> <50513C1A.9020504@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <50513C1A.9020504@redhat.com> 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: Eric Sandeen Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, xfs-oss On 09/12/2012 06:51 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 9/12/12 7:41 PM, Brad Figg wrote: > >> Eric, >> >> Thanks for taking the time to point this out. We will adjust our testing accordingly. >> We initially tried to run xfstest against ext2, ext3, ext4, xfs and btrfs. We are also >> trying to get these tests to run on several different kernel versions as you can >> see from our test results. We were running into issues on different kernels and various >> file-systems while getting our act together, we did this as a band-aid. > > I see. > >> I accept that we have some things to learn w.r.t. running this test suite. We will work >> to run the xfstests "as is" without any outside "intelligence". We do recognise that >> is a dynamic set of tests that people are adding to regularly. >> >> I am not attempting to get just a series of "pass" results. If that were my goal >> I could accomplish it much easier and would not have engaged with the community >> on the mailing list. We want to help where we can and will accept constructive >> criticism. > > Sorry, it sounds like I came across too strong there - it was just a little worrying to see failing or problematic tests disabled or otherwise artificially restricted. > > I'm actually very excited to see you setting up ongoing, public testing using xfstests, I think it'll be a great benefit, especially if there's a way to see a particular test's results across several kernel versions and/or filesystems and/or architectures, so that patterns of failure can emerge. > > If you find that xfstests is missing some feature or behavior which would facilitate testing in the automated environment, please do let us know what you need - or send patches. :) > > Thanks, > -Eric > >> Brad >> > No harm, no foul. We really don't mind constructive criticism. We are also eager to get this setup and running. We will try to contribute more than just running tests. I do want to point out that we are using the xfstests which is a snapshot in autotest. We do also look at the latest xfstests in the official xfstests repo and add it in when we see a delta. We will also work with the autotest maintainers to stay more up-to-date with xfstests. Thanks, Brad -- Brad Figg brad.figg@canonical.com http://www.canonical.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs