Project

General

Profile

action #54176

[kernel][ltp][s390x] stress_cd test (from ltp_io_cd) fails due missing CDROM in VM on s390x

Added by pvorel about 1 year ago. Updated 5 months ago.

Status:
New
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
Category:
Bugs in existing tests
Target version:
SUSE QA tests - Planned - kernel&network
Start date:
2019-07-12
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Estimated time:
Difficulty:
Duration:

Description

https://openqa.suse.de/tests/3051906#step/stress_cd/8

ERROR [153: open failed /dev/cdrom: No such file or directory]

We should:
1) add CDROM to VM (in svirt configuration for libvirt in consoles/sshVirtsh.pm) if possible (maybe it's not possible to emulate it for s390x).
2) Fix test in LTP upstream to TCONF. But that will require rewrite the test to use LTP API (not using even legacy API ATM). So we should validate whether this tests is meaningful/useful.

History

#1 Updated by pvorel about 1 year ago

  • Subject changed from [kernel][ltp] stress_cd test (from ltp_io_cd) fails due missing CDROM in VM to [kernel][ltp][s390x] stress_cd test (from ltp_io_cd) fails due missing CDROM in VM on s390x
  • Description updated (diff)

#2 Updated by pvorel about 1 year ago

  • Assignee set to metan

Asked metan to to investigate stress_cd, whether it's worth of keeping.

#3 Updated by metan about 1 year ago

Well looking at the code what it does is to:

  • Read 100MB of cdrom and compute checksum

  • Does the same with 10 threads at the same time and compares the checksum for each thread

Now the test does not seem to be bogus at all, the question is how useful it is.

#4 Updated by pvorel about 1 year ago

Thanks for investigate it. Hm, not sure how useful it is, but at least it's some test.

Looking into tools/testing in kernel source tree, there is nothing.

It might make sense to check cdrom standard
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/cdrom/cdrom-standard.html

or some other usage
https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/cdrom/ide-cd

But I guess cdrom is quite obsolete nowadays, probably not the best area to spent time.

#5 Updated by jlausuch 10 months ago

pvorel metan what is the status of this? was ltp_io_cd removed?
I guess I would go for removing it

#6 Updated by metan 5 months ago

Not removed yet. The next logical step would be sending a patch to the LTP ML so that we can discuss it there.

Also available in: Atom PDF