Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 14 Feb 2019 20:50:20 -0500 | From | Sasha Levin <> | Subject | Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] FS, MM, and stable trees |
| |
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 12:14:35PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote: >On Wed, 2019-02-13 at 20:52 +0100, Greg KH wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 02:25:12PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote: >> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 10:18:03AM +0100, Greg KH wrote: >> > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 11:01:25AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: >> > > > Best effort testing in timely manner is good, but a good way to >> > > > improve confidence in stable kernel releases is a publicly >> > > > available list of tests that the release went through. >> > > >> > > We have that, you aren't noticing them... >> > >> > This is one of the biggest things I want to address: there is a >> > disconnect between the stable kernel testing story and the tests >> > the fs/ and mm/ folks expect to see here. >> > >> > On one had, the stable kernel folks see these kernels go through >> > entire suites of testing by multiple individuals and organizations, >> > receiving way more coverage than any of Linus's releases. >> > >> > On the other hand, things like LTP and selftests tend to barely >> > scratch the surface of our mm/ and fs/ code, and the maintainers of >> > these subsystems do not see LTP-like suites as something that adds >> > significant value and ignore them. Instead, they have a >> > (convoluted) set of testing they do with different tools and >> > configurations that qualifies their code as being "tested". >> > >> > So really, it sounds like a low hanging fruit: we don't really need >> > to write much more testing code code nor do we have to refactor >> > existing test suites. We just need to make sure the right tests are >> > running on stable kernels. I really want to clarify what each >> > subsystem sees as "sufficient" (and have that documented >> > somewhere). >> >> kernel.ci and 0-day and Linaro are starting to add the fs and mm >> tests to their test suites to address these issues (I think 0-day >> already has many of them). So this is happening, but not quite >> obvious. I know I keep asking Linaro about this :( > >0day has xfstests at least, but it's opt-in only (you have to request >that it be run on your trees). When I did it for the SCSI tree, I had >to email Fenguangg directly, there wasn't any other way of getting it.
It's very tricky to do even if someone would just run it. I worked with the xfs folks for quite a while to gather the various configs they want to use, and to establish the baseline for a few of the stable trees (some tests are know to fail, etc).
So just running xfstests "blindly" doesn't add much value beyond ltp I think.
-- Thanks, Sasha
| |