On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 08:14 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On Thu, 15 May 2008 09:52:05 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > On Thursday 15 May 2008, Subrata Modak wrote: > > > On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 06:32 +0530, Sudhir Kumar wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:40:52PM -0500, George Kraft wrote: > > > > > There has been an offline discussion about using LTP to test read-only > > > > > bind mounts; however, the tests will likely "fail" and not give good > > > > > results. I would like to suggest that the LTP filesystem tests may > > > > > need to be enhanced to handle the read-only scenario. For example, if > > > > > the filesystem tests were run on a read-write filesystem, then they > > > > > should return "pass"; however, if they were run on a read-only > > > > > filesystem, then they should return "untested" because it could not > > > > > write to the filesystem. In POSIX testing an "untested" result is > > > > > considered a pass.
Hi All, This seems to be a good idea and will help us develop the upcoming RO Bind mount namespace test cases. Given the massive efforts involved, can anybody volunteer to take this task. Regards-- Subrata > > > > > > > > > > Pass: a test result belonging to this group is considered to be a pass > > > > > for compliance testing purposes: Pass, Warning, FIP, Unsupported, Not > > > > > In Use, Untested > > > > > > > > > > Fail: a test result belonging to this group is considered to be a fail > > > > > for compliance testing purposes (unless the failure has been waived by > > > > > an agreed Problem Report in the Certification Problem Reporting > > > > > database): Fail, Uninitiated, Unresolved, Unreported > > > > > > > > > > If one wants to stick with LTP's return codes, then we should use > > > > > TWARN > > > > > found in /opt/ltp/include/test.h instead of UNTESTED. > > > > > > I would prefer TCONF, as i believe TWARN would best be used in > > > situations where the test case itself is not supported. TCONF is used in > > > situations where the test is supported but cannot run due to some > > > configuration settings. So, TCONF suits this scenario. > > > > > > Mike, > > > > > > What do you say ? > > > > either TCONF or TBROK ... we dont seem to be terribly consistent in this > > respect at the moment, but definitely one of those two would be appropriate > > in the scenario you lay out. is there a document we have for writing test > > cases ? we should lay out the logic behind each T level so we dont have to > > keep rehashing/rethinking it. > > > There was an email thread (Subject: Re: [LTP] TCONF vs TBROK) in which > Nate Straz wrote: > <quote> > I would return TCONF if you can figure out that the test is not > appropriate with the found configuration. Trying to enable swap on an > NFS mount point would be a configuration error to me. > > TBROK would be appropriate if you created the swap file then got a does > not exist error in the next step. > </quote> > > > --- > ~Randy ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
