Re: ✅ PASS: Stable queue: queue-5.0

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 01:56:34PM -0400, Veronika Kabatova wrote:
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Greg KH" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> > To: "CKI Project" <cki-project@redhat.com>
> > Cc: "Linux Stable maillist" <stable@vger.kernel.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 7:01:50 PM
> > Subject: Re: ✅ PASS: Stable queue: queue-5.0
> > 
> > On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 11:21:07AM -0400, CKI Project wrote:
> > >   x86_64:
> > >      ✅ Boot test [0]
> > >      ✅ LTP lite [2]
> > >      ✅ Loopdev Sanity [3]
> > >      ✅ AMTU (Abstract Machine Test Utility) [4]
> > >      ✅ Ethernet drivers sanity [5]
> > >      ✅ httpd: mod_ssl smoke sanity [6]
> > >      ✅ iotop: sanity [7]
> > >      ✅ tuned: tune-processes-through-perf [8]
> > >      ✅ Usex - version 1.9-29 [9]
> > >      ✅ lvm thinp sanity [10]
> > >      ✅ Boot test [0]
> > >      ✅ xfstests: xfs [1]
> > >      🚧 ✅ audit: audit testsuite test [12]
> > >      🚧 ✅ stress: stress-ng [13]
> > >      🚧 ✅ selinux-policy: serge-testsuite [11]
> > 
> > Just a question, what is the number in the [] above?
> > 
> > The number of tests run?  And if so:
> >       ✅ Boot test [0]
> > is listed twice, with no tests run?  Doesn't booting count? :)
> > 
> > Also, "LTP lite", isn't that a lot more than just 2 tests that are part
> > of that?  Any chance you can add more LTP tests, much like Linaro has?
> > I think their list of LTP tests they are running is somewhere.
> > 
> > >   Test source:
> > >     [0]:
> > >     https://github.com/CKI-project/tests-beaker/archive/master.zip#distribution/kpkginstall
> > >     [1]:
> > >     https://github.com/CKI-project/tests-beaker/archive/master.zip#/filesystems/xfs/xfstests
> > >     [2]:
> > >     https://github.com/CKI-project/tests-beaker/archive/master.zip#distribution/ltp/lite
> > >     [3]:
> > >     https://github.com/CKI-project/tests-beaker/archive/master.zip#filesystems/loopdev/sanity
> > >     [4]:
> > >     https://github.com/CKI-project/tests-beaker/archive/master.zip#misc/amtu
> > >     [5]:
> > >     https://github.com/CKI-project/tests-beaker/archive/master.zip#/networking/driver/sanity
> > >     [6]:
> > >     https://github.com/CKI-project/tests-beaker/archive/master.zip#packages/httpd/mod_ssl-smoke
> > >     [7]:
> > >     https://github.com/CKI-project/tests-beaker/archive/master.zip#packages/iotop/sanity
> > >     [8]:
> > >     https://github.com/CKI-project/tests-beaker/archive/master.zip#packages/tuned/tune-processes-through-perf
> > >     [9]:
> > >     https://github.com/CKI-project/tests-beaker/archive/master.zip#standards/usex/1.9-29
> > >     [10]:
> > >     https://github.com/CKI-project/tests-beaker/archive/master.zip#storage/lvm/thinp/sanity
> > >     [11]:
> > >     https://github.com/CKI-project/tests-beaker/archive/master.zip#/packages/selinux-policy/serge-testsuite
> > >     [12]:
> > >     https://github.com/CKI-project/tests-beaker/archive/master.zip#packages/audit/audit-testsuite
> > >     [13]:
> > >     https://github.com/CKI-project/tests-beaker/archive/master.zip#stress/stress-ng
> > 
> > Ah crap, it's a footnote, nevermind on most of what I wrote above :)
> > 
> > But why is booting happening twice?
> > 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> in some cases we are running multiple recipes in a single test job, to
> get out the results faster. Each recipe is started by a "boot test" since
> that's responsible for installing and booting the kernel being tested. The
> report joins all recipes for given architecture, hence that one test is
> shown there multiple times. I agree that we should make this more clear
> and separate the report parts per recipes but we didn't have time for it
> yet, sorry. I notified people about the problem and we'll prioritize :)
> 
> > And I see you are running xfstests, which is great, but does it really
> > all "pass"?  What type of filesystem image are you running it on.
> > 
> 
> Here you can find the list of subtests that's being run [0] and a list of
> excluded ones from them [1]. This is just a reduced test set as some of the
> tests were triggering fake failures or taking too long to run as a part of
> CI. The lists may change in the future of course.
> 
> We set up two separate xfs partitions for the testing. The machine should
> have at least 50G of space available for this.
> 
> 
> Hope this explains everything and sorry for the recipe confusion. Let us
> know if you have anything else!

Thanks a lot for the information.  It's good to see that someone is
finally running xfstests on the stable trees, that's much appreciated.

greg k-h