Re: [PATCH 2/2] tests/scsi/0001: Regression test for SCSI device blacklisting

2018-05-21 Thread Omar Sandoval
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 01:29:39AM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 11:00:49PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 12:50:06PM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > > > SCSI device blacklisting seems to be a tricky subject, with > > > lots of potential for messing

Re: [PATCH 2/2] tests/scsi/0001: Regression test for SCSI device blacklisting

2017-12-13 Thread Omar Sandoval
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 11:00:49PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote: > On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 12:50:06PM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > > SCSI device blacklisting seems to be a tricky subject, with > > lots of potential for messing up the selection algorithm. > > This adds a test for catching

Re: [PATCH 2/2] tests/scsi/0001: Regression test for SCSI device blacklisting

2017-08-16 Thread Omar Sandoval
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 12:50:06PM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > SCSI device blacklisting seems to be a tricky subject, with > lots of potential for messing up the selection algorithm. > This adds a test for catching regressions here. I'm waiting to see how the patches end up before applying

Re: [PATCH 2/2] tests/scsi/0001: Regression test for SCSI device blacklisting

2017-08-15 Thread Bart Van Assche
On Wed, 2017-08-09 at 12:50 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > +requires() { > +if modinfo scsi_debug | grep -q inq_vendor ; then > + return 0 > +fi > +return 1 > +} How about changing the above four statements into the following, which is shorter and more robust? modinfo scsi_debug

[PATCH 2/2] tests/scsi/0001: Regression test for SCSI device blacklisting

2017-08-09 Thread Hannes Reinecke
SCSI device blacklisting seems to be a tricky subject, with lots of potential for messing up the selection algorithm. This adds a test for catching regressions here. Signed-off-by: Hannes Reinecke --- tests/scsi/001 | 69 ++