xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfstests: add background noise to test 276 (btrfs backref re

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: add background noise to test 276 (btrfs backref resolving)
From: Jan Schmidt <list.btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 20:17:57 +0100
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, alex.btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <51489BD6.6030504@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1363710260-10225-1-git-send-email-list.btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <51489BD6.6030504@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130106 Thunderbird/17.0.2
On 19.03.2013 18:09, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Furthermore, this increases two constants which make the test simply cycle a
>> few seconds longer, increasing the chance to hit on something suspicious in
>> case we broke something.
> 
> Normally we don't change existing tests lest new failures look like 
> regressions
> when they aren't, but hey, "btrfs is an experimental filesystem" so maybe it's
> ok in this case.  ;)  At some point when things are settled down, we wouldn't
> want to make a change like this.  But for now it doesn't bother me.

(justification) I thought about adding this modification as a separate
test - and I have no strict objections against doing so. It's just that
I hate duplicating code and I couldn't think of a good way to share all
that code between two individual tests. Plus: We do need the new
version, because it shows backref walking in fact is currently broken,
while the old version would never fail where the new one wouldn't.

Thanks for taking a look!
-Jan

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