From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751998Ab1HLRKF (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Aug 2011 13:10:05 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:62315 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751068Ab1HLRKE (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Aug 2011 13:10:04 -0400 Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 19:09:58 +0200 From: Andrew Jones To: Steven Rostedt Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/10] ktest: Introduce PASS_COUNT Message-ID: <20110812170958.GA18363@turtle.usersys.redhat.com> References: <1313155932-20092-1-git-send-email-drjones@redhat.com> <1313155932-20092-8-git-send-email-drjones@redhat.com> <1313167785.18583.336.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1313167785.18583.336.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-12-10) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:49:45PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 2011-08-12 at 15:32 +0200, Andrew Jones wrote: > > Add another config variable that defines the number of times a test > > must pass before it really passes. This is good for boot tests, where > > the failure doesn't occur every time. > > I'm curious to how this is really different than the ITERATE keyword. > > That is, if we had: > > TEST_START ITERATE 10 > TEST_TYPE = test > TEST = ssh root@box "/work/runtest" > > Hmm, is this to help in the bisects? Right. I played with ITERATE, but it didn't look like it would work for bisecting boot problems that may fail once in some number of boots. Perhaps I missed something though. > > Maybe it should be called ITERATE as well, just to be consistent. > > TEST_START > TEST_TYPE = bisect > ITERATE = 10 > > ?? > > Or maybe that is confusing too, as that could be used to do the iterate > within the TEST_START (hmm, I may add that). > > How about PASS_THRESHOLD? or PASS_COUNT_THRESHOLD? As I think that may > be more descriptive. PASS_THRESHOLD sounds good. Should I respin with that change now? Or are you still considering a different design? > > /me rereads his email and sees that he has a tendency to talk to > himself. > /me wonders if he answered himself with a different design idea, so will hold off on the updated patch for the moment. Drew > > -- Steve > >