On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 12:41:18PM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > Getting xfs/040 to "pass" takes a bit of effort, however the effort > to require updating xfsprogs is purely an xfsprogs maintainer task > only. There no functional gain by users of xfs or a QA team to get > this test to pass. This is not trivial from the current description > so document this. > > Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> Looks good... Reviewed-by: Bill O'Donnell <billodo@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > tests/xfs/040 | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/tests/xfs/040 b/tests/xfs/040 > index fadb888cbfaf..a0abc42f3720 100755 > --- a/tests/xfs/040 > +++ b/tests/xfs/040 > @@ -3,6 +3,11 @@ > # > # compare-libxfs test > # > +# The purpose of this test is only to nag the maintainer of xfsprogs to try to > +# keep xfsprogs's libxfs files in sync with the latest kernel's libxfs. There > +# is no functional need for anyone to actually run this test to confirm > +# proper XFS functionalilty, this is an xfsprogs maintainer test. > +# > #----------------------------------------------------------------------- > # Copyright (c) 2000-2001 Silicon Graphics, Inc. All Rights Reserved. > # > -- > 2.15.0 > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" 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-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
