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 7C54D7F37 for ; Sun, 23 Jun 2013 17:57:50 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15709AC003 for ; Sun, 23 Jun 2013 15:57:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [63.231.237.45]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id uA7qDs4vpPSthI8q for ; Sun, 23 Jun 2013 15:57:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <51C77D6D.4020107@sandeen.net> Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2013 17:57:49 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: group for tests that are dangerous for verifiers? References: <51C341E1.8000302@sgi.com> <51C49F5A.3020907@sandeen.net> <20130623225053.GA29376@dastard> In-Reply-To: <20130623225053.GA29376@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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: Mark Tinguely , xfs-oss On 6/23/13 5:50 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > 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. But this test *intentionally* corrupts, right? So it's prudent to not run a test which you *know* will explode if it runs as designed. >> 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. Then maybe just part of the normal dangerous group would be enough. Except this isn't transient (today) - it's not a case where old kernels may oops, it's where it's *designed* to oops on this test, with a debug kernel. So I guess I could see a debug-dangerous group ;) >> 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... Removing it sounds like the best option then. Thanks, -Eric > Cheers, > > Dave. > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs