On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:02:47AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > >> linux-fsdevel might seem as a good candidate for it, but still I > >> think that it deserves a separate ML to point people to. I'm personally in favor of using linux-fsdevel since it might encourage more fs developers who aren't using xfstests yet to start using it. For example, we started investigating using xfstests to test unionfs, and pretty quickly found problems. (I suspect the same problem exists in AUFS, BTW, but I've been focusing on unionfs because it's simpler and less scary.) The patches to enable the use of xfstests to test unionfs are still pretty rough, but hopefully we'll get those sent to Dave once they are cleaned up a bit. - Ted _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
