Dan Williams <[email protected]> writes: > Typically RFC means "not ready to apply, still seeking fundamental > approach feedback". Should I be looking to consider this for > v5.11-rc1, or is this still RFC / should wait for v5.12?
I would like this to go in, after your comments to the previously RFC, I guess this has moved beyond the RFC tag. I will re-send the series without the RFC tag. Meanwhile I will continue to work on getting both modules to co-exist and be exercised in the same build apart from getting SMART and error injection tests. > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 2:39 AM Santosh Sivaraj <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> The current test module cannot be used for testing platforms (make check) >> that do not have support for NFIT. In order to get the ndctl tests working, >> we need a module which can emulate NVDIMM devices without relying on >> ACPI/NFIT. >> >> The emulated PMEM device is made part of the PAPR family. >> >> Corresponding changes for ndctl is also required, to add attributes needed >> for the test, which will be sent as a reply to this patch. >> >> The following is the test result, run on a x86 guest: >> >> PASS: libndctl >> PASS: dsm-fail >> PASS: dpa-alloc >> PASS: parent-uuid >> PASS: multi-pmem >> PASS: create.sh >> FAIL: clear.sh >> FAIL: pmem-errors.sh >> FAIL: daxdev-errors.sh >> PASS: multi-dax.sh >> PASS: btt-check.sh >> FAIL: label-compat.sh >> PASS: blk-exhaust.sh >> PASS: sector-mode.sh >> FAIL: inject-error.sh >> SKIP: btt-errors.sh >> PASS: hugetlb >> PASS: btt-pad-compat.sh >> SKIP: firmware-update.sh >> FAIL: ack-shutdown-count-set >> PASS: rescan-partitions.sh >> FAIL: inject-smart.sh >> FAIL: monitor.sh >> PASS: max_available_extent_ns.sh >> FAIL: pfn-meta-errors.sh >> PASS: track-uuid.sh >> ============================================================================ >> Testsuite summary for ndctl 70.10.g7ecd11c >> ============================================================================ >> # TOTAL: 26 >> # PASS: 15 >> # SKIP: 2 >> # XFAIL: 0 >> # FAIL: 9 >> # XPASS: 0 >> # ERROR: 0 >> >> The following is the test result from a PowerPC 64 guest. >> >> PASS: libndctl >> PASS: dsm-fail >> PASS: dpa-alloc >> PASS: parent-uuid >> PASS: multi-pmem >> PASS: create.sh >> FAIL: clear.sh >> FAIL: pmem-errors.sh >> FAIL: daxdev-errors.sh >> PASS: multi-dax.sh >> PASS: btt-check.sh >> FAIL: label-compat.sh >> PASS: blk-exhaust.sh >> PASS: sector-mode.sh >> FAIL: inject-error.sh >> SKIP: btt-errors.sh >> SKIP: hugetlb >> PASS: btt-pad-compat.sh >> SKIP: firmware-update.sh >> FAIL: ack-shutdown-count-set >> PASS: rescan-partitions.sh >> FAIL: inject-smart.sh >> FAIL: monitor.sh >> PASS: max_available_extent_ns.sh >> FAIL: pfn-meta-errors.sh >> PASS: track-uuid.sh >> ============================================================================ >> Testsuite summary for ndctl 70.git94a00679 >> ============================================================================ >> # TOTAL: 26 >> # PASS: 14 >> # SKIP: 3 >> # XFAIL: 0 >> # FAIL: 9 >> # XPASS: 0 >> # ERROR: 0 > > With these run reports are you trying to demonstrate the improvement, > or the future work? This shows what work still needs to be done. As of now there is SMART and error injection which I am working on right now. > > I think it's sufficient to say that no tests ran with nfit_test > previously, but now 26 pass. Extra interesting would be to determine > if any current papr regression fixes in the tree would have been > caught by an ndtest run. So far there is are no regressions caught. Thanks, Santosh _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
