Re: [PATCH] iotests: Do not run the iotests during "make check" anymore

[John Snow]

On 10/7/19 9:03 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 03.10.19 01:51, John Snow wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/2/19 11:50 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
>>> On 02.10.19 17:10, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>>> On 02/10/2019 17.03, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 04:21:46PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>>>>> Running the iotests during "make check" is causing more headaches than
>>>>>> benefits for the block layer maintainers, so let's disable the iotests
>>>>>> during "make check" again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <address@hidden>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>  tests/Makefile.include   | 2 +-
>>>>>>  tests/qemu-iotests/group | 2 +-
>>>>>>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't have any objection to removing from 'make check', but I feel
>>>>> like this commit should be modifying the travis.yml config so that
>>>>> it explicitly runs the block tests, otherwise we're loosing automated
>>>>> CI and the block tests will increase their rate of bitrot again.
>>>>
>>>> I was planning to send a separate patch for that (once my Travis builds
>>>> are through...), but if it is preferred, I can also send a v2 of this
>>>> patch here where I include that change.
>>>>
>>>> Max, any preferences?
>>>
>>> I don’t mind either way.  I don’t think we’re in danger of you
>>> forgetting to send the Travis patch.
>>>
>>> As for running the tests on macOS: Good question.  I’d just let them run
>>> now and maybe see later whether that decision hurts.  macOS has its own
>>> filesystem, so it may be worth testing there.
>>>
>>> Max
>>>
>>
>> There are absolutely known bugs and problems using APFS that we have not
>> fixed.
> 
> Sorry, somehow missed your reply. :-/
> 
> Yes, that was the idea why I said that maybe running the tests there
> would be worth it, because it’s a different FS that produces, well,
> interesting results.
> 
> But on second thought, who’s going to address those problems?  So, yeah,
> that wouldn’t really help.
> 
> Max
> 

Yeah, the problem with APFS is I don't have access to using it to debug
any of those problems, so they stay broken and nobody has stepped up to
submit patches. :(

--js