On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 15:55:34 -0400, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 04:48:15AM +0400, Dmitry Monakhov wrote: > > Related bug: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/118863 > > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@xxxxxxxxxx> > > This causes a very weird XFS failure in test 117 for me. While it > obviously is an xfs bug that you uncovered (good!) I'm a bit worried > about simply enabling operations in existing tests. Ohh. i've got what your are talking about. We can not add new ops for tests there seed is passed explicitly. And yes i've braked this, but this is because such frozen tests was written in not determined way :). Good determined test should has not just seed opt, but also explicit set of operations. All others (non determined) tests which use fsstress may benefit from new ops. So I'll redo my patch queue like this: 1) Add explicit option set for all frozen tests 2) Add new features to fssstress with non zero probability. > > Alex, Eric, Dave - should we add new tests with the new operations > Dmitry added, or is adding new ops to the existing tests fine? > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
