On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Jeff Moyer <[email protected]> wrote: > Dan Williams <[email protected]> writes: > >> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Jeff Moyer <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Dan Williams <[email protected]> writes: >>> >>>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Jeff Moyer <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Dan Williams <[email protected]> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> +check_min_kver() >>>>>> +{ >>>>>> + local ver="$1" >>>>>> + : "${KVER:=$(uname -r)}" >>>>>> + >>>>>> + [ -n "$ver" ] || return 1 >>>>>> + [[ "$ver" == "$(echo -e "$ver\n$KVER" | sort -V | head -1)" ]] >>>>>> +} >>>>>> + >>>>>> +check_min_kver "4.11" || { echo "kernel $KVER may lack latest >>>>>> device-dax fixes"; exit $rc; } >>>>> >>>>> Can we stop with this kernel version checking, please? Test to see if >>>>> you can create a device dax instance. If not, skip the test. If so, >>>>> and if you have a kernel that isn't fixed, so be it, you'll get >>>>> failures. >>>> >>>> I'd rather not. It helps me keep track of what went in where. If you >>>> want to run all the tests on a random kernel just do: >>>> >>>> KVER="4.11.0" make check >>> >>> This, of course, breaks completely with distro kernels. >> >> Why does this break distro kernels? The KVER variable overrides "uname -r" > > Because some features may not exist in the distro kernels. It's the > same problem you outline with xfstests, below. >
Right, but you started off with suggesting that just running the test and failing was ok, and that's the behavior you get with KVER=. >>> You don't see this kind of checking in xfstests, for example. git >>> helps you keep track of what changes went in where (see git describe >>> --contains). It's weird to track that via your test harness. So, I >>> would definitely prefer to move to a model where we check for >>> features instead of kernel versions. >> >> I see this as a deficiency of xfstests. We have had to go through and >> qualify and track each xfstest and why it may fail with random >> combinations of kernel, xfsprogs, or e2fsprogs versions. I'd much >> prefer that upstream xfstests track the minimum versions of components >> to make a given test pass so we can stop doing it out of tree. > > Yes, that's a good point. I can't think of a good compromise, either. Maybe we can at least get our annotated blacklist upstream so other people can start contributing to it? _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list [email protected] https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm
