J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 05:50:18PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> The tests are primarily meant to test protocol conformance. So they >> shouldn't be reporting failures on conforming behavior. >> >> Perhaps it would also be interesting to run the tests in a mode which >> probes and summarizes server characteristics (maximum supported offset, >> supported features, etc.), but that's a job for another day. > > Hm, actually another alternative would be just to keep these tests, but > to *always* allow them to succeed. Or to fail only if the server > returns an error that really is totally wrong. > > Even if we don't much care about the results, sending operations with > extreme values for the arguments may still help make sure server's don't > skimp on the range-checking and crash in some lower-level code. > This sounds reasonable to me. ps -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
