[LSF/MM/BPF ATTEND][LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] : blktests: status, an expansion plan for the storage stack test framework

[Chaitanya Kulkarni]

On 1/18/23 18:20, Shinichiro Kawasaki wrote:
> CC+: Mike, dm-devel,
> 
> Hi Chaitanya, thanks for bringing this up! I definitely want to join and learn
> from the discussions. Here I note my comments about them.
> 
> On Jan 18, 2023 / 23:52, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote:
> [...]
>> For storage track, I would like to propose a session dedicated to
>> blktests. It is a great opportunity for the storage developers to gather
>> and have a discussion about:-
>>
>> 1. Current status of the blktests framework.
> 
> In the session, I can talk shortly about recent blktests improvements and
> failure cases.
> 
>> 2. Any new/missing features that we want to add in the blktests.
> 
> A feature I wish is to mark dangerous test cases which cause system crash, in
> similar way as fstests does. I think they should be skipped by default not to
> confuse new blktests users.
> 
> I remember that dmesg logging was discussed at the last LSFMMBPF, but it is not
> yet implemented. It may worth revisit.
> 
>> 3. Any new kernel features that could be used to make testing easier?
>> 4. DM/MD Testcases.
> 
> I took a liberty to add Mike and dm-devel to CC. Recently, a patch was posted to
> add 'dm' test category [1]. I hope it will help DM/MD developers to add more
> tests in the category. I would like to discuss if it is a good start, or if
> anything is missing in blktests to support DM/MD testing.
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/20221230065424.19998-1-yukuai1@huaweicloud.com/#t

we really need to sort out the dm testcases, without dm testcases it
not allowing us to create baseline correctness for block layer,
I've already discussed that in the last LSF.

> 
>>
>> E.g. Implementing new features in the null_blk.c in order to have device
>> independent complete test coverage. (e.g. adding discard command for
>> null_blk or any other specific REQ_OP). Discussion about having any new
>> tracepoint events in the block layer.
>>
>> 4. Any new test cases/categories which are lacking in the blktests
>> framework.
> 
> One thing in my mind is character device. From recent discussions [2][3], it
> looks worth adding some basic test cases for NVME character devices and SG
> devices.
> 

Agree

-ck