* Frank Ch. Eigler <fche@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> writes: > > >> Yeah good idea. But again, I fear my laptop hasn't enough > >> memory to support big enough ramdisks mount points to host > >> selftests. > > > > Well, dont waste too much time on it (beyond the due diligence > > level) - Andi forgot that the right way to stress-test patches > > is to get through the review process and then through the > > integration trees which have far more test exposure than any > > single contributor can test. > > What guideline can you offer as to what is "due diligence" level > of stress testing, as compared to delegating this task to > eyeballed reviews + incidental use on the integration trees? The kind of testing the VFS tree itself gets is a good starting point i suspect - and it is a far more critical tree as it can affects all filesystems. AFAICS the VFS tree relies on linux-next and -mm for testing mostly and that's a good model IMO. Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe reiserfs-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
