From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MJN2E-0002rW-C6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:36:46 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MJN29-0002p4-Gh for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:36:45 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=57244 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MJN29-0002p1-8T for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:36:41 -0400 Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:57020) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MJN28-00022B-Mr for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:36:40 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MJN27-0001o6-UL for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:36:40 -0400 Message-ID: <4A41D743.9030107@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 09:35:31 +0200 From: Kevin Wolf MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] the qemu-iotests test suite is now available References: <20090622210523.GA8024@lst.de> <4A409D65.3040104@redhat.com> <20090623143105.GA17748@lst.de> <4A40E86D.9060907@redhat.com> <20090623164130.GB27211@lst.de> In-Reply-To: <20090623164130.GB27211@lst.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Christoph Hellwig schrieb: > 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. No, not yet. If you like I can try to patch it in, but maybe at this point you know best how options like varying cluster size fit best in the code. Don't know how much you care about your design. ;-) Kevin