On Mon 13-05-13 11:34:12, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 5/12/13 4:01 AM, Dmitry Monakhov wrote: > > In fact '4eec70' are vexing because I have reviewed and tested this patch before > > it was marked as Review-by, but missed the bug. This is because xfstests > > was executed manually logs was full of warnings but tainted flag was not > > checked at the end. > > Can you elaborate on this? What was logged, and is it something we could > try to pick up post-test in xfstests? Generally I think it might be useful if xfstests would fail / warn if kernel became tainted during the test (e.g. due to WARN_ON or oops, or something like that). It should be even relatively easy to implement (just compare /proc/sys/kernel/tainted before and after each test). Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
