On Wednesday, March 27, 2024 12:28:17 PM CET Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote: > On 3/27/24 07:14, Christian Schoenebeck wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 27, 2024 10:33:27 AM CET Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote: > >> On 3/27/24 05:47, Christian Schoenebeck wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, March 26, 2024 6:47:17 PM CET Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote: > >>>> On 3/26/24 14:05, Greg Kurz wrote: > >>>>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 10:26:04 -0300 > >>>>> Daniel Henrique Barboza <dbarb...@ventanamicro.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> The local 9p driver in virtio-9p-test.c its temporary dir right at the > >>>>>> start of qos-test (via virtio_9p_create_local_test_dir()) and only > >>>>>> deletes it after qos-test is finished (via > >>>>>> virtio_9p_remove_local_test_dir()). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This means that any qos-test machine that ends up running > >>>>>> virtio-9p-test local > >>>>>> tests more than once will end up re-using the same temp dir. This is > >>>>>> what's happening in [1] after we introduced the riscv machine nodes: if > >>>>>> we enable slow tests with the '-m slow' flag using qemu-system-riscv64, > >>>>>> this is what happens: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> - a temp dir is created, e.g. qtest-9p-local-WZLDL2; > >>>>>> > >>>>>> - virtio-9p-device tests will run virtio-9p-test successfully; > >>>>>> > >>>>>> - virtio-9p-pci tests will run virtio-9p-test, and fail right at the > >>>>>> first slow test at fs_create_dir() because the "01" file was > >>>>>> already > >>>>>> created by fs_create_dir() test when running with the > >>>>>> virtio-9p-device. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We can fix it by making every test clean up their changes in the > >>>>>> filesystem after they're done. But we don't need every test either: > >>>>>> what fs_create_file() does is already exercised in fs_unlinkat_dir(), > >>>>>> i.e. a dir is created, verified to be created, and then removed. Fixing > >>>>>> fs_create_file() would turn it into fs_unlikat_dir(), so we don't need > >>>>>> both. The same theme follows every test in virtio-9p-test.c, where the > >>>>>> 'unlikat' variant does the same thing the 'create' does but with some > >>>>>> cleaning in the end. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Consolide some tests as follows: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> - fs_create_dir() is removed. fs_unlinkat_dir() is renamed to > >>>>>> fs_create_unlinkat_dir(); > >>>>>> > >>>>>> - fs_create_file() is removed. fs_unlinkat_file() is renamed to > >>>>>> fs_create_unlinkat_file(). The "04" dir it uses is now being > >>>>>> removed; > >>>>>> > >>>>>> - fs_symlink_file() is removed. fs_unlinkat_symlink() is renamed to > >>>>>> fs_create_unlinkat_symlink(). Both "real_file" and the "06" dir it > >>>>>> creates is now being removed. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> The change looks good functionally but it breaks the legitimate > >>>>> assumption > >>>>> that files "06/*" come from test #6 and so on... I think you should > >>>>> consider > >>>>> renumbering to avoid confusion when debugging logs. > >>>>> > >>>>> Since this will bring more hunks, please split this in enough reviewable > >>>>> patches. > >>>> > >>>> Fair enough. Let me cook a v2. Thanks, > >>> > >>> Wouldn't it be much simpler to just change the name of the temporary > >>> directory, such that it contains the device name as well? Then these tests > >>> runs would run on independent directories and won't interfere with each > >>> other > >>> and that wouldn't need much changes I guess. > >> > >> That's true. If we were just trying to fix the issue then I would go with > >> this > >> approach since it's simpler. But given that we're also cutting half the > >> tests while > >> retaining the coverage I think this approach is worth the extra code. > > > > Well, I am actually not so keen into all those changes. These tests were > > intentionally split, and yes with costs of a bit redundant (test case) code. > > But they were cleanly build up on each other, from fundamental requirements > > like whether it is possible to create a directory and file ... and then the > > subsequent tests would become more and more demanding. > > > > That way it was easier to review if somebody reports a test to fail, because > > you could immediately see whether the preceding fundamental tests succeeded. > > The current test design is flawed. It's based on a premise that doesn't > happen, i.e. > a new temp dir will be created every time the test suit is executed. In > reality the > temp dir is created only once in the constructor of the test, at the start of > qos-test > (tests/qtest/qos-test.c, run_one_test()) and removed only once at the > destructor > at the end of the run. > > It's not possible to add a 'device name' in the created temp dir because > we're too early > in the process, the tests didn't start at that point. So, with the current > temp dir design, > the tests needs to clean themselves up after each run. > > Here's the alternatives I'm willing to go for: > > - what I just sent in v2; > > - add cleanups in all existing tests. We can keep all of them, but the > 'create' tests > will be carbon copies of the 'unlinkat' tests but with different names. Can > be done; > > - if we really want the tests untouched we can rework how the 'temp dir' is > created/deleted. > The test dir will be created and removed after each test via the 'before' > callback. To be > honest this seems like the best approach we can take, aside from what I did > in v2, and > it's on par with how tests like vhost-user-test.c works.
Yeah, the latter sounds like the best solution to me, too. Don't get me wrong, I didn't want to burden you with more work. It's really just that I think that restructuring all test cases is contra productive. If you want I can also look into that. Just let me know. Thanks! /Christian
