xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: markgw@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] XFS: Use the inode tree for finding dirty inodes
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:46:43 -0500
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <488692FB.1010101@xxxxxxx>
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> <488692FB.1010101@xxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Macintosh/20080421)
Mark Goodwin wrote:
> 
> 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?

I think that'll depend very much on what the change is.  For new
functionality, sounds good; for bugfixes with testcases, sounds good.
For general algorithm improvements... how do you write a new QA test for
"Use the inode tree for finding dirty inodes?"  Or for that matter, my
remaining 2 shouting-removal patches ;)

> 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?

Sounds awesome, for serious contributors.  I'd be happy to use it, too ;)

-Eric


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