Re: Help with lvm2 tests.

On 10/28/25 10:59 AM, Pierre Labastie ([email protected] via blfs-dev Mailing 
List) wrote:
> 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".


Yes.  I am going to do that with a few more details.

   -- Bruce

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