Re: [PATCH] Revert "bcache: fix improper use of bi_end_io"

On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 05:18:15AM -0500, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > > https://evilpiepirate.org/git/ktest.git/tree/README.md
> > > https://evilpiepirate.org/git/ktest.git/tree/tests/bcache/
> > 
> > I just quickly look at the tests and I got the impression some of those
> > tests could be added to blktests. blktests is run by various people,
> > thus bcache would get some basic test exposure, e.g. in linux-next.
> 
> ktest has features that blktests/fstests don't - it's a full testrunner,
> with a CI and test dashboard, with subtest level sharding that runs on
> entire cluster.

That's why I said some of tests could be added directly to blktests,
e.g.

test_main()
{
    setup_tracing 'bcache:*'

    setup_bcache
    cset_uuid=$(ls -d /sys/fs/bcache/*-*-* | sed -e 's/.*\///')

    (
     	for i in $(seq 1 3); do
	    sleep 5
	    echo > /sys/block/bcache0/bcache/detach
	    echo "detach done"
	    sleep 5
	    echo $cset_uuid > /sys/block/bcache0/bcache/attach
	    echo "attach done"
	done
    )&

    run_antagonist
    run_fio
    stop_bcache
}

seems something which could also run in blktests. Sure, blktests doesn't
have all the features ktest has, but that is besides the point. The
bcache test suite is surely a good thing. Lately, blktests is getting
traction and run by more people and QA teams. My whole comment is that
adding some explicit bcache tests will get bcache more test exposure.

> What would make sense would be for ktest to wrap blktests, like it
> already does fstests.

Sure, not a problem.