[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87390zzjr9.fsf@spindle.srvr.nix>
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 22:29:30 +0100
From: Nix <nix@...eri.org.uk>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Apparent serious progressive ext4 data corruption bug in 3.6.3 (and other stable branches?)
On 27 Oct 2012, Eric Sandeen spake thusly:
> On 10/27/12 4:21 PM, Nix wrote:
>> On 27 Oct 2012, Eric Sandeen verbalised:
>>> That's what we needed. Woulda been great a few days ago ;)
>>
>> *wince* sorry!
>
> It's ok, I know sometimes this testing takes time.
It took much less time once I figured out that umount -l at the last
moment before reboot would reliably corrupt one filesystem and one
filesystem only. Before that, I was having to fsck 2.5Tb of filesystems
on every test run, just in case the latest reboot had zapped them too...
> It has exposed the fact that we are not doing a good job
> regression testing all of the available configurations.
This is the Linux kernel: what was it Linus joked years ago, users are
the test load? I'm impressed you have any regression testing at all, let
alone as much as you seem to. :P :P
(But, seriously, fsstress is a wonderful thing. And the kernel's test
culture *is* improving, and I'm happy to see filesystem hackers in the
front line.)
--
NULL && (void)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists