[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Mark Goodwin <markgw@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] XFS: Use the inode tree for finding dirty inodes
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:49:27 -0400
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: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 12:10:03PM +1000, Mark Goodwin wrote:
> [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?

For most patches that just clean things up or change internal
implementations adding new testcases doesn't make much sense.  The only
case is when you suspect/know the testcase don't cover this area enough.

What would be nice is if we'd add more testcases for user reported

Btw, does anyone have recent gcov data for XFS?

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