On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 01:22:20AM +0000, Glenn Washburn wrote: > On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 10:56:49 +0200 > Carlos Maiolino <cmaiol...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 02:40:57PM +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote: > > > CC-ing Javier... > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 01:48:50PM +0200, Carlos Maiolino wrote: > > > > Hi. > > > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 11:18:31AM +0200, Erwan Velu wrote: > > > > > Good day list, > > > > > Le jeu. 26 août 2021 à 15:26, Carlos Maiolino > > > > > <[1]cmaiol...@redhat.com> a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > [..] > > > > > Thanks for spotting this! > > > > > > > > > > I'm adding the maintainers in CC. Carlos who commit the > > > > > patch I'm fixing, agreed on the content. > > > > > > > > I didn't test the patch itself yet, but I've reproduced the > > > > issue. I was quite sure I had tested this patch on a V4 fs, but > > > > looks like I miscalculated the sizing. Thanks again. I'll try to > > > > test the patch here asap. > > > > > > Did you test this patch? If yes may I add your Tested-by to it? > > > > Yup, patch works fine, just finished testing it, I was just trying to > > understand where/why I miscalculated the inode size on V4 > > filesystems, and the reason was the same why Erwan split the > > last/first members of inode v2/v3 in two different unused structs. > > > > Feel free to add to the patch: > > > > Tested-by: Carlos Maiolino <cmaiol...@redhat.com> > > It looks like the xfs_test test succeeds with tag grub-2.06-rc1a, fails > with tag grub-2.06, and succeeds with current master. Yes, as expected. > However, what this tells me is that no "make check" tests were done > before finalizing the 2.06 release. I was under the impression that that > was part of the release procedure. If its not, it would seem that we're > not using the tests at a time when they would have the most impact.
Currently I run build tests for all architectures and platforms and Coverity for x86_64 EFI before every push and release. I know this is not enough but I tried "make check" at least once and got the impression that the tests are not reliable. Sadly I have not time to dive deeper and fix this and that. If someone, you?, wants to verify all tests and fix broken ones I will be more than happy to start using it (it seems to me your "[PATCH v2 0/8] Various fixes/improvements for tests" patch set fixes some issues but I am not sure if all of them). > It is my understanding that we have travis-ci tests that get run (at > some point?), however they are only build tests and so would not have > caught this. It was precisely this scenario that I hoped to avoid by > doing more thorough continuous integration, which runs the extensive > array of "make check" tests, when I submitted the Gitlab-CI patch > series (which would've caught this automatically if it had been merged). > To me this scenario is the poster child for taking action on this > front. Can we make this a priority? I think I can take a closer look at patch set mentioned above in a week or two. If "make check" works as expected and can be run locally then we can think about automating the testing. Daniel _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
