On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 13:34:41 +0400, Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 i've stuck immediately on first test ;(. on my kernel 107'th test always failed (commit: 73a57c642cdfa660 "1.1.0 release"), is it expected? Which xfs-tree and commit should i use? > 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 _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
