On 5/13/13 12:01 PM, Jan Kara wrote: > 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 > Ah, right. That should be easy, I'll see if I can cook that up. Thanks, -Eric -- 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
