Re: [PATCH 3/4] tests: add nbd and luks to the I/O test suites

[Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>]

Am 08.10.2025 um 17:55 hat Eric Blake geschrieben:
> > > Also not sure whether we should add "nbd" to the "formats" list - it's a
> > > protocol, and not a format, isn't it?
> > 
> > Yes, technically there are two distinct axis  formats vs protocols, but
> > from the POV of running the 'check' script the boundary is rather blurred.
> > 
> > You can run './check -nbd' and './check -qcow2', or both combined. The main
> > limit that you can only pick a single format and single protocol at a time.
> 
> In fact, I've seen times where './check -nbd -raw' passes but './check
> -nbd -qcow2' fails, because that combination enables different sets of
> tests.  So we probably STILL aren't giving CI everything possible to
> test by having just one dimension of easy-to-name test subsets, but it
> is still better than no CI nbd tests at all.

How valid is -nbd -qcow2 even? Wasn't there the fundamental problem that
NBD devices can't grow?

Running various image formats may be useful for other protocols, but I'm
not sure that NBD is one of them.

> > IMHO for test suites it is preferrable to keep a flat namespace, rather
> > than creating a matrix of suites for protocol vs format combniations.
> > 
> > Perhaps the meson.build variable should just be renamed from _formats
> > to something else.
> 
> Renaming makes sense to me; would _bds be a reasonable name (since
> both protocols and formats are a BDS)?  I'm open to other naming
> ideas, as well.

Well, bdrv if anything (block driver rather than BlockDriverState).

But we also have -fuse, which isn't really a block driver, but it just
means that we're using the file protocol on top of a FUSE export...

Probably not worth renaming from one imperfect name to another imperfect
one.

Kevin