[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Jan Schmidt <list.btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: add background noise to test 276 (btrfs backref resolving)
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 06:31:52 +1100
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, alex.btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <5148B9E5.5000702@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1363710260-10225-1-git-send-email-list.btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <51489BD6.6030504@xxxxxxxxxxx> <5148B9E5.5000702@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 08:17:57PM +0100, Jan Schmidt wrote:
> 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.

The current way is to use a common.<blah> file to do it.

However, using test templates is the way I want to do it in future -
it will be perfect for these sorts of test variations:



Dave Chinner

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