From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MJ93y-0006aP-4k
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:41:38 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MJ93t-0006TQ-EX
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:41:37 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=58636 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MJ93t-0006T8-5B
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:41:33 -0400
Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.210]:57145)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA1:24) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <hch@lst.de>) id 1MJ93s-0002Z5-Im
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:41:32 -0400
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:41:30 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] the qemu-iotests test suite is now available
Message-ID: <20090623164130.GB27211@lst.de>
References: <20090622210523.GA8024@lst.de> <4A409D65.3040104@redhat.com>
	<20090623143105.GA17748@lst.de> <4A40E86D.9060907@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4A40E86D.9060907@redhat.com>
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 04:36:29PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig schrieb:
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:16:21AM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> >> About the qcow2 tests there is one thing to note: These test cases use
> >> hard coded offsets which were calculated for 4k clusters. For 64k
> >> clusters (which the default now) I'm almost sure they don't test the
> >> critical points any more. So we'll need to change offsets dynamically
> >> depending on the cluster size of the qcow2 image.
> > 
> > Or just run the test for all interesting cluster sizes to some more
> > coverage (should be only 4k and 64k for now).
> 
> We could either always test both 4k and 64k or let the user choose on
> the command line. Either way, this is unrelated to what I meant. I'm
> talking about things like this:
> 
>     # Spanning multiple clusters
>     io $op $((offset + 2048)) 8192 12288 64
> 
> This is a request spanning multiple 4k clusters, but for 64k clusters it
> is just another write somewhere in the middle of the cluster. So with
> 64k we actually have worse coverage currently than with 4k clusters (and
> we don't test 4k yet).

Yes, that needs updates for the 64k clusters.  Do you already have an
updated version?  If not I'll walk through it once I'm done here with
FISL.