From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 801A1175A85; Thu, 7 May 2026 20:21:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778185265; cv=none; b=jf0bd8HhjKxJS27n+k7SXUkPexm2Ag1T010v5BoWqHz0tlHQg2z1dKjN9cL6Zwi8EsoXa5rQRqUKS/+DLLi+A8fhE8fWqJ9qZfMGuBckFY5ZaoEK7NQAU2knD+u3EFC7lK5NJfRSLpt+V9kYlzKKx02n2mmIJ4kPzPDiRdzdk90= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778185265; c=relaxed/simple; bh=tD8py6U0e7L6UhPQPJi5qYuBjRmS263KJiaioSan1ks=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=IP9n4CYmMATeP7+KZftI6To7xLvcAc4hha+fzgez+cIGTRsFqYOXf+aP/sKn8aWX8w2IqcyjhcpQfWGzgo5EjTA/jFHRWhX0YkO9Tdd41gJw0q8gUday2hVNsIpBBvsRCURYLiqKTDZTi01JUTB9/DcjV++KyVqycw8kw3STbkU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=dpMDx/Pg; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="dpMDx/Pg" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6557FC2BCB2; Thu, 7 May 2026 20:21:00 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1778185265; bh=tD8py6U0e7L6UhPQPJi5qYuBjRmS263KJiaioSan1ks=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=dpMDx/Pg4TmbJr9ZvqT7t7ldaFhuiW081o5nuciCK9xQ7dymxSwvb8z8wqwyAFig2 ah9M+A7BrMaMAc8ifD6XVmWvEqZSJl6qu3Vi4Zaubm0kqdvhwvAX9iWVkEQGWWsybr Y+r8K24L5K4Bel7pOLLRW9yf6AwpP5Y5H62D2EWGO6rVLdkSAcsVmJUW3cSwuO+SEv oy2sqcduu2boXuTT0ZqzUOlLX8oTTS1nMhF1pZw9jt8J/Eb2P4Vwis0lJm49SoTdNU ovNEF9GhIo9Af3/qQ77T2D8Ul9PM3inRTZkzBzI8quZPppPfvkEL46eQIwEIWoJJ3z kO4/eHHQzubxA== Date: Fri, 8 May 2026 04:20:54 +0800 From: Zorro Lang To: Theodore Tso Cc: fstests@vger.kernel.org, xfs-list , ext4-list , btrfs-list Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] check: add new option "--loop " which runs each test multiple times Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Tso , fstests@vger.kernel.org, xfs-list , ext4-list , btrfs-list References: <20260415213248.1795275-1-tytso@mit.edu> <20260505133409.GA49070@macsyma.local> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260505133409.GA49070@macsyma.local> On Tue, May 05, 2026 at 03:34:09PM +0200, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 05:32:48PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > Teach the check script a new option --loop, which re-run each test > > multiple times. This works very similarly to to -L, which will retry > > a particular test after it first fails, except that the test is rerun > > unconditionally. > > Ping? Does anyone have a preference between adding a new option, > --loop, or changing the heaviour of the -i option? Hi Ted, Personally, I feel that once we have --loop, the existing -i starts to lose its value. --loop is far more effective at catching specific, flaky bugs due to its stashing logic. Furthermore, if we eventually add something like --loop-while-successful, then -I also becomes redundant. It might be worth considering a more unified naming convention in the long run, perhaps renaming -L to --loop-on-fail and keeping everything under the --loop-* family. This would be much clearer for other users than the current mix of single-letter flags. Welcome any further feedback. Also, feel free to weigh in if you have concerns about the potential impact of renaming these option names. Thanks, Zorro > > > This differs from the "-i " option, which iterates each set of > > tests times instead of each test. The -i option is problematic in > > two ways. First, it doesn't save the test artifacts from each test run. > > This is unfortunate because when the developer is trying to debug a > > flaky test failure, running "check -i 100" will run a test 100 times, > > but if only the 42nd test fails, the NNN.out.bad file for that failing > > test run is not preserved. The second difference between --loop and > > -i is the result.xml file is rewritten after each test set, so we do > > not have the cumulative statistics of the 100 test runs in the junit > > XML file. > > - Ted >