On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:09:22 -0500, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Also we can use abrt's kernel-oops handler to collect messages. > > Thanks, > -Eric > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- 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
