On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 09:07:52AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > Yup. A lot of regression tests get written to tick a process box > (i.e. did we fix regression X?), not because they provide on-going > value to prevent future regressions. I try to push back against > tests that won't provide us with useful protection against future > regressions.... Yeah, that wasn't the case here. The bug was fixed by Salman Qazi at Google in May 2012. The test was created by Eryu nearly a year later in April 2013. > Rather than time limiting, how about bounding the number of > mount/unmount cycles? Sure, that makes sense. - 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
