On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 09:25:56AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > Actually, we shouldn't be changing xfstests or adding workarounds in > the kernel to avoid certain operations. We should be fixing the damn > bugs that are being exposed. Well, I'm waiting for Namjae to look into the test failures. Unfortunately I don't have time right now to fix it myself. In the meantime, I wanted to do a full baseline test run to make sure we didn't have any other regressions or failures post -rc1, and so being able to filter out collapse range allowed me to kick off a test of the rest of the patches I was hoping to push to Linus for -rc2. > i.e. that we have to add the FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE to fsx and > fsstress as well as having corner case tests and it needs to pass > those tests before XFS support is ready for upstream inclusion. At > least, that's the lesson I learnt from as the xfstests and XFS > Maintainer - we didn't put the QA bar for inclusion high enough, and > so problems slipped through. > > If you want to add more strict testing requirements for ext4 > inclusion, then you're welcome to request them for the ext4 > implementation of that functionality. You don't have to accept the > code until you're happy with it.... No arguments here; I plan to do the same. Regards, - Ted -- 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
