On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 13:34:41 +0400, Dmitry Monakhov [off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 15:55:34 -0400, Christoph Hellwig [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 04:48:15AM +0400, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:

quoted

Related bug: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/118863

Signed-off-by: Dmitry Monakhov <redacted>

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. 

quoted

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@vger.kernel.org
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@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs