xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request

To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 07:54:07 +1100
Cc: Rich Johnston <rjohnston@xxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20130327134606.GJ5861@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <5152F2BB.4000709@xxxxxxx> <20130327134606.GJ5861@xxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 09:46:06AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 08:23:07AM -0500, Rich Johnston wrote:
> > All xfstest developers,
> > 
> > Thanks again for all your time in submitting and reviewing patches
> > for xfstests.  The latest patchset posted here:
> > 
> > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-03/msg00467.html
> > 
> > requires all current patches to be re-factored.
> 
> Given that we are now segregating patches into subdirectories, is it
> correct in the future tests should be named descriptively, instead of
> using 3 digit NNN numbers (which has been a major pain from a central
> assignment perspective)?

Support for named tests have not yet been added. From the check
script:

SUPPORTED_TESTS="[0-9][0-9][0-9] [0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]"

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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