Re: [PATCH 4/8] selftests: ublk: use auto_zc for PER_IO_DAEMON tests in stress_04

[Caleb Sander Mateos]

On Thu, Dec 11, 2025 at 1:06 AM Ming Lei <ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 10:15:59PM -0700, Caleb Sander Mateos wrote:
> > stress_04 is described as "run IO and kill ublk server(zero copy)" but
> > the --per_io_tasks tests cases don't use zero copy. Plus, one of the
> > test cases is duplicated. Add --auto_zc to these test cases and
> > --auto_zc_fallback to one of the duplicated ones. This matches the test
> > cases in stress_03.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Caleb Sander Mateos <csander@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  tools/testing/selftests/ublk/test_stress_04.sh | 8 ++++----
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/ublk/test_stress_04.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/ublk/test_stress_04.sh
> > index 3f901db4d09d..965befcee830 100755
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/ublk/test_stress_04.sh
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/ublk/test_stress_04.sh
> > @@ -38,14 +38,14 @@ if _have_feature "AUTO_BUF_REG"; then
> >       ublk_io_and_kill_daemon 256M -t stripe -q 4 --auto_zc --no_ublk_fixed_fd "${UBLK_BACKFILES[1]}" "${UBLK_BACKFILES[2]}" &
> >       ublk_io_and_kill_daemon 8G -t null -q 4 -z --auto_zc --auto_zc_fallback &
> >  fi
> >
> >  if _have_feature "PER_IO_DAEMON"; then
> > -     ublk_io_and_kill_daemon 8G -t null -q 4 --nthreads 8 --per_io_tasks &
> > -     ublk_io_and_kill_daemon 256M -t loop -q 4 --nthreads 8 --per_io_tasks "${UBLK_BACKFILES[0]}" &
> > -     ublk_io_and_kill_daemon 256M -t stripe -q 4 --nthreads 8 --per_io_tasks "${UBLK_BACKFILES[1]}" "${UBLK_BACKFILES[2]}" &
> > -     ublk_io_and_kill_daemon 8G -t null -q 4 --nthreads 8 --per_io_tasks &
> > +     ublk_io_and_kill_daemon 8G -t null -q 4 --auto_zc --nthreads 8 --per_io_tasks &
> > +     ublk_io_and_kill_daemon 256M -t loop -q 4 --auto_zc --nthreads 8 --per_io_tasks "${UBLK_BACKFILES[0]}" &
> > +     ublk_io_and_kill_daemon 256M -t stripe -q 4 --auto_zc --nthreads 8 --per_io_tasks "${UBLK_BACKFILES[1]}" "${UBLK_BACKFILES[2]}" &
> > +     ublk_io_and_kill_daemon 8G -t null -q 4 --auto_zc --auto_zc_fallback --nthreads 8 --per_io_tasks &
>
> I'd rather to fix the test description, the original motivation is to cover
> more data copy parameters(--z, --auto_zc, plain copy) in same stress test.

What about the duplicated "-t null -q 4 --nthreads 8 --per_io_tasks"
test case? I can't imagine that's intentional...

Thanks,
Caleb