Re: Help with lvm2 tests.

Am 28.10.25 um 16:40 schrieb Bruce Dubbs ([email protected] via
blfs-dev Mailing List):
> 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.
As the tests are so complex and costly and require configuration-work
etc. that goes far beyond what's necessary for just building and
installing lvm2, it might make make sense to spell out clearly for whom
and under what circumstances it might make sense to run them at all.  I
for one didn't and have no regrets about it.

Rainer

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