On 5/14/13 2:11 AM, Dmitry Monakhov wrote: > 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. I sent a pretty simple patch to just check the sysctl to the xfs list yesterday. -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
