[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140403193039.GD32323@thunk.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 15:30:40 -0400
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, xfs@....sgi.com,
lsf@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>,
"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Lsf] [PATCH] xfstests-bld: Simplify determination of number of
CPUs in build-all
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 01:06:40PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 4/3/14, 11:35 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>
> >> - There's an undocumented way to write results outside the source
> >> tree called RESULT_BASE. It would be great if it were documented and
> >> spelled consistently.
>
> I'm not actually certain that it was intended to be used this way.
> See 1686f9ab "xfstests: Introduce a results directory"
> which explains just where this variable came from and what it's
> for...
The last paragraph states of the git description states:
This is the first (small) step in being able to store test results
in an external location for archival/data mining purposes.
The question I suppose is whether storing the results in an external
location is something that should be xfstests' responsibility, or of
the test harnesses that call xfstests. I suspect that since there are
so many different ways people might want to archive the results, it
does make sense for the test harnesses to handle this job, but I
wouldn't want to "presume" on anything that the xfstests developers
might choose to do....
- Ted
--
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