xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 2/4] XFS: Use the inode tree for finding dirty inodes

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] XFS: Use the inode tree for finding dirty inodes
From: Mark Goodwin <markgw@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:10:03 +1000
In-reply-to: <20080723000548.GG5947@disturbed>
Organization: SGI Engineering
References: <1216556394-17529-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1216556394-17529-3-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080722042829.GB27123@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080722053019.GI6761@disturbed> <20080722072733.GA15376@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080723000548.GG5947@disturbed>
Reply-to: markgw@xxxxxxx
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421)


Dave Chinner wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 03:27:33AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
...
I only fear
we'll never get it in with the current review and commit latencies
for XFS :(

I can see this being a big issue in the not-too-distant future.....

[getting off-topic for this thread, but anyway ..]
This is already a big issue, obviously, and has been for some time.

Internally, we're attempting to refine our patch acceptance processes,
(e.g. gitify our internal dev tree and mirror it on oss so it's much
easier to push back out to oss). But the QA overhead remains a stubborn
problem. I think we're going to have to ask for QA tests (both regression
and performance) to be written as part of the patch acceptance policy -
under this policy, merely passing existing QA will not be sufficient.
Comments?

We have recently set up external access to a system for QA and
regression testing for Christoph's use .. perhaps that should
be a permanent offering?

Cheers
-- Mark


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>