On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 13:34:41 +0400, Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 15:55:34 -0400, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 04:48:15AM +0400, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> > > Related bug: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/118863
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > This causes a very weird XFS failure in test 117 for me. While it
> > obviously is an xfs bug that you uncovered (good!) I'm a bit worried
> > about simply enabling operations in existing tests.
> Ohh. i've got what your are talking about. We can not add new ops
> for tests there seed is passed explicitly. And yes i've braked this, but
> this is because such frozen tests was written in not determined
> way :). Good determined test should has not just seed opt, but also
> explicit set of operations. All others (non determined) tests which use
> fsstress may benefit from new ops. So I'll redo my patch queue like this:
> 1) Add explicit option set for all frozen tests
i've stuck immediately on first test ;(.
on my kernel 107'th test always failed (commit: 73a57c642cdfa660
"1.1.0 release"), is it expected? Which xfs-tree and commit should i use?
> 2) Add new features to fssstress with non zero probability.
> > Alex, Eric, Dave - should we add new tests with the new operations
> > Dmitry added, or is adding new ops to the existing tests fine?
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html