Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] xfs: stable fixes for v4.19.y

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 11:05:59PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 09:06:55AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 08:54:17AM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> >>Kernel stable team,
> >>
> >>here is a v2 respin of my XFS stable patches for v4.19.y. The only
> >>change in this series is adding the upstream commit to the commit log,
> >>and I've now also Cc'd stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx as well. No other issues
> >>were spotted or raised with this series.
> >>
> >>Reviews, questions, or rants are greatly appreciated.
> >
> >Test results?
> >
> >The set of changes look fine themselves, but as always, the proof is
> >in the testing...
> 
> Luis noted on v1 that it passes through his oscheck test suite, and I
> noted that I haven't seen any regression with the xfstests scripts I
> have.
> 
> What sort of data are you looking for beyond "we didn't see a
> regression"?

Nothing special, just a summary of what was tested so we have some
visibility of whether the testing covered the proposed changes
sufficiently.  i.e. something like:

	Patchset was run through ltp and the fstests "auto" group
	with the following configs:

	- mkfs/mount defaults
	- -m reflink=1,rmapbt=1
	- -b size=1k
	- -m crc=0
	....

	No new regressions were reported.


Really, all I'm looking for is a bit more context for the review
process - nobody remembers what configs other people test. However,
it's important in reviewing a backport to know whether a backport to
a fix, say, a bug in the rmap code actually got exercised by the
tests on an rmap enabled filesystem...

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Development Newbies]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux