[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <wko3lfszmhyczqav7bks5cb2bsttfnq3uhjrqk44ayahtfozvs@s3ug7d7jnhor>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2023 10:22:57 +0200
From: Daniel Wagner <dwagner@...e.de>
To: Shinichiro Kawasaki <shinichiro.kawasaki@....com>
Cc: "linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@...dia.com>,
Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@...dia.com>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
James Smart <jsmart2021@...il.com>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH blktests v2 00/12] Switch to allowed_host
On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 02:55:25AM +0000, Shinichiro Kawasaki wrote:
> On Aug 11, 2023 / 09:00, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> [...]
> > BTW, what do you think about removing nvme/006 and nvme/007? They are
> > basically doing nothing anymore except setting up a target with either
> > device or file backing. We exercise this code now in all the other
> > tests. So this is bit redundant IMO.
>
> I think the test cases are meaningful. They confirm that target set up feature
> is working good. When other test cases fail, we can refer nvme/006 and nvme/007
> results and see if the failure cause is in target set up or not.
Fair enough. If I want to cut execution time I can just exclude those
test from the run.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists