| To: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request |
| From: | Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 27 Mar 2013 17:48:04 -0400 |
| Cc: | Rich Johnston <rjohnston@xxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20130327205407.GU6369@dastard> |
| References: | <5152F2BB.4000709@xxxxxxx> <20130327134606.GJ5861@xxxxxxxxx> <20130327205407.GU6369@dastard> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 07:54:07AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> 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]"
Ah, I thought support for named tests was there. For right now,
though, if we have test ext4/123 and btrfs/123, that's OK and they are
considered separate tests, right? Or do we still need to keep the
numbers unique for now?
- Ted
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: xfs_fsr, sunit, and swidth, Stan Hoeppner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Crash with 3.8.3 and TuxOnIce, Pedro Ribeiro |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request, Dave Chinner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request, Dave Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |