Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2] generic: test i_mode recovery after power failure

From: Jayashree Mohan <jayashree2912@gmail.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>,
	Filipe Manana <fdmanana@gmail.com>,
	fstests <fstests@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
	Eryu Guan <guaneryu@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2] generic: test i_mode recovery after power failure
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2019 14:42:05 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+EzBbCT4Xz+1aQ5r2kgp8_YaSu3=HsCSsLpVchOQR4oe54oiw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190307202214.GH26298@dastard>

Hi Dave,

We will submit patches for the rest of the tests soon. We are working on it.

Thanks,
Jayashree Mohan

Thanks,
Jayashree Mohan

On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 2:22 PM Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 09:12:06AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 12:12 AM Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 09:44:54AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Oh, wait, we *already have that infrastructure*: src/fsync-tester.c
> > > > > > > and generic/311.
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Right now 311 is not "quick".
> > > > That means adding quick tests to it without breaking it up or declaring it quick
> > > > is not a good idea.
> > >
> > > Why would we need to change the group? Indeed, I almost never use
> > > the "quick" group anymore because it doesn't mean "quickly run a
> > > smoke test" anymore. It now just means "test doesn't take a long
> > > time" but that still adds up to 30-60 minutes of runtime (depending
> > > on storage) because of the hundreds of tests in the quick group.
> > >
> > > If you are testing crash recovery changes, then you are likely
> > > running the "log" group to execute all the crash recovery tests,
> > > maybe the "metadata" group, and maybe the "shutdown" group.
> > >
> > > So I don't think the this test not being in the "quick" group is
> > > relevant at all.
> > >
> >
> > OK. Just pointing your attention to the fact that the test generic/520
> > is a result of public discussion of how crash consistency tests should
> > be aggregated into xfstests tests.
>
> That was about how the crashmonkey tests would be integrated, not
> generic fsync tests should be integrated.  There lots of
> auto-generated crashmonkey tests them and they were proposing a
> single fs test per single fsync test. We ended up settling  on
> "aggregating into related groups" and generic/520 only covers one
> specific group - only about 5 test cases of the many, many
> crashmonkey test cases that were proposed. Which leaves me to
> ponder: what happened to the rest of the Crashmonkey test cases that
> were supposed to follow on from generic/520?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@fromorbit.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel