On Wed, 10 Oct 2012, Dave Chinner wrote: > Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:39:13 +1100 > From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH] 260: Add another corner case where length is zero > > On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 11:23:13PM +0200, Lukáš Czerner wrote: > > On Wed, 10 Oct 2012, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > > Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 06:40:19 +1100 > > > From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > To: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] 260: Add another corner case where length is zero > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 02:16:52PM +0200, Lukas Czerner wrote: > > > > This commit adds another corner case to test FITRIM argument handling. > > > > In this case we set length to zero and we expect the number of discarded > > > > bytes to be obviously zero, however we've had bug in both ext4 and xfs > > > > where the internal variable would underflow. This test case will be able > > > > to catch that in future. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > I'd create another test for this, rather than making 260 suddenly > > > fail for everyone.... > > > > Hmm, I am not sure what is the point. I've created 260 exactly for > > this reason of testing FITRIM argument handling and it already > > contains number of tests like this one. I am not strongly against > > having this in separate test, however it seems rather unnecessary to > > me. > > IT's a regression test - it's only supposed to start failing when > the kernel functionality is broken. That is, someone who is > tracking failures over time will suddenly see a new failure in 260 > and wonder what kernel code broke, when in fact nothing was changed > in the kernel code. IOWs, changing the test invalidates all past > history of running the test, and that in turn breaks historic > regression tracking metrics... > > This is why we historically have avoided changing existing tests and > instead wrote new tests, no matter how similar the functionality > between the old and new tests are. > > Cheers, > > Dave. > Fair enough. I'll create a separate test for this. Thanks! -Lukas
_______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
