Nope, Debian x86-64 Any chance the buildbots can be easily modified to run make check/make tests?
I'm really curious what debian ppc32/ppc64 will do. I have an arm build, but no fuse kernel module (debian on an sdcard on an android tablet). On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:39:55PM -0400, Derrick Brashear wrote: > So. Were you perchance using it on a Mac? Probably a 64 bit Intel mac? > > http://gerrit.openafs.org/#change,8132 > > As nearly as I can tell, this is a very specific problem. The code is fine. > The > circumstances of building afsd.fuse meant it was collateral damage when we > started using roken, but only on MacOS, and probably only for non-32 > bit pointers, > because MacOS does something odd with dirent.h > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Derrick Brashear <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Troy Benjegerdes <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'm looking to get all the low-hanging fruit with unskilled testing. > >> Particularly with regressions like this: > >> > >> hozer@six:~/src/openafs-fuse-git/tests/fuse$ > >> /home/hozer/src/openafs-fuse-git/tests/fuse/../../src/afsd/afsd.fuse > >> -dynroot -fakestat -d -confdir > >> /home/hozer/src/openafs-fuse-git/tests/fuse/conf -cachedir > >> /home/hozer/src/openafs-fuse-git/tests/fuse/vcache -mountdir > >> /home/hozer/src/openafs-fuse-git/tests/fuse/mntdir > >> FUSE library version: 2.8.6 > >> nullpath_ok: 0 > >> unique: 1, opcode: INIT (26), nodeid: 0, insize: 56 > >> INIT: 7.17 > >> flags=0x0000047b > >> max_readahead=0x00020000 > >> Starting AFS cache scan...found 0 non-empty cache files (0%). > >> afsd: All AFS daemons started. > >> Segmentation fault > >> > >> > >> I am pretty sure this is related to the work Simon is doing on Libtool, > >> and there's a 90% probability it's a 30-second 'aha', followed by a two > >> line fix, and we're back to working again. > >> > > > > I'd bet not. However.... > > > >> The code is so complicated it will take me half a day to track down what > >> that two line fix is, or work in my own isolated fork and not get updates > >> as quickly. That unskilled smoke testing and/or automated runs gets a LOT > >> of mileage. > > > > Not really. Build with debugging and get a real backtrace. That said, > > since fuse is not *required* > > functionality in a build, yes, it's undertested. This is why we've > > generally avoided code which doesn't > > always build. Or, at least tried to. > > > >> It also gives people who want to learn about the codebase something simple > >> and meaningful they can do, instead of waiting around for someone else to > >> come up with a test plan. > > > >> > >> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:25:36AM -0500, David Boyes wrote: > >>> > How about an effort to get nightly builds of master available on as many > >>> > platforms as possible, and getting thousands of bored college students > >>> > to > >>> > download, install, and test them? > >>> > >>> I think that's still overly optimistic. There's a lot of moving parts > >>> here; you just can't just install a package and have it do something > >>> useful. You need to have a lot of surrounding infrastructure that > >>> involves real control of a fair amount of stuff that random college > >>> students won't have. 'make check' on a single machine will never give > >>> you useful testing results other than to find packaging or "smoke test" > >>> errors, which aren't all that helpful overall. > >>> > >>> > Wouldn't that massive crowsourced testing effort be worth the time of a > >>> > single developer to make sure *some* sort of package, even if it's half- > >>> > assed, gets distributed? I can't think of much of anything else that > >>> > has a > >>> > bigger resource multiplation factor than a 'one click install', along > >>> > with some > >>> > defaults to use a 'test.openafs.org' cell. > >>> > >>> As others have commented, unskilled testing performed without a detailed > >>> test plan on software systems this complex is probably less helpful than > >>> might otherwise appear. GIGO applies here. A uncoordinated test process > >>> is unlikely to produce anything useful in that there have to be a > >>> sequence of coordinated tests, replacing one component at a time in a > >>> known order. I can't see how crowdsourcing would help here. > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> OpenAFS-info mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info > >> _______________________________________________ > >> OpenAFS-info mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Derrick > > > > -- > Derrick > _______________________________________________ > OpenAFS-info mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
