Re: Help with lvm2 tests.

On Tue, 2025-10-28 at 10:40 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> On 10/28/25 2:01 AM, Pierre Labastie ([email protected] via
> blfs-dev Mailing 
> List) wrote:
> > On Mon, 2025-10-27 at 20:09 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> > > On 10/27/25 3:12 PM, Joe Locash ([email protected] via blfs-dev
> > > Mailing List) wrote:
> > > > On 10/27/25 3:36 PM, Bruce Dubbs
> > > > ([email protected] via
> > > > blfs-dev Mailing
> > > > List) wrote:
> > > > > I was trying to update to lvm2-LVM2.2.03.36 today but I got a
> > > > > lot
> > > > > of test errors
> > > > > that I can't figure out:
> > > > > 
> > > > > # 443 tests: 6 passed, 236 skipped, 0 timed out, 0 warned,
> > > > > 201
> > > > > failed in 1:38.219
> > > > > 
> > > > > Can I get someone else to check this out please.
> > > > > 
> > > > >    -- Bruce
> > > > > 
> > > > > Here is an example of the output for one failure:
> > > 
> > > [snip]
> > > 
> > > > I see the same thing:
> > > 
> > > [snip]
> > > 
> > > > ### 443 tests: 6 passed, 239 skipped, 0 timed out, 0 warned,
> > > > 198
> > > > failed  in  2:17.432
> > > 
> > > I make a little progress.  I thought I has all the appropriate
> > > kernel
> > > configuration
> > > settings in place, but a review of the lvm2 page showed that I
> > > missed
> > > some.  I now have:
> > > 
> > > ### 443 tests: 155 passed, 247 skipped, 0 timed out, 1 warned, 40
> > > failed   in 13:52.880
> > > 
> > > And I loked some more and found that I didn't have all the mdadm
> > > kernel modules
> > > built.  Adding those I now have:
> > > 
> > > ### 443 tests: 330 passed, 86 skipped, 0 timed out, 1 warned, 26
> > > failed   in 32:10.559
> > > 
> > > The tests also seem to want reiserfs and scsi_debug modules.  I
> > > looked at the
> > > directory test/results and tried to look at the files there. 
> > > However
> > > there are 314K
> > > lines spread out over 445 files.  Trying to find the 26 failed
> > > files
> > > is not obvious.
> > > 
> > > Overall I'm not sure how to address this in the book and am
> > > looking
> > > for ideas.
> > 
> > We already make some provision in the book:
> > "The tests do not implement the “expected fail” possibility, and a
> > small number of test failures is expected by upstream. More
> > failures
> > may happen because some kernel options are missing."
> > I guess 26 failures out of 360 or so is acceptable in this context.
> 
> Having 26 out of 443 tests or a little over 5 percent is an unusually
> large number 
> for us.  In my first build having only 1% passed is totally
> unacceptable.
> 
> I'm still thinking about how to reword the text about the tests.
> 
> 

I don't think you need to: adding more and more kernel options will
make more tests pass. The problem is upstream don't know about skipping
tests if a kernel module is not available! and they don't know about
expected fail either (all of those are marked "fail"). So having a
large number of failure is normal. You can add something like "the
number of failed tests is very dependent on kernel option settings".

Pierre

-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/sympa/info/blfs-dev
Unsubscribe: See the above information page