[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <y0mzlah238y.fsf@fche.csb>
Date:	Sun, 02 Aug 2009 19:41:01 -0400
From:	fche@...hat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler)
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@...e.com>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	Alexander Beregalov <a.beregalov@...il.com>,
	Bron Gondwana <brong@...tmail.fm>,
	Reiserfs <reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Andrea Gelmini <andrea.gelmini@...il.com>,
	"Trenton D. Adams" <trenton.d.adams@...il.com>,
	Thomas Meyer <thomas@...3r.de>,
	Alessio Igor Bogani <abogani@...ware.it>,
	Marcel Hilzinger <mhilzinger@...uxnewmedia.de>,
	Edward Shishkin <edward.shishkin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Reiserfs/kill-bkl tree v2
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> writes:
>> Yeah good idea. But again, I fear my laptop hasn't enough memory 
>> to support big enough ramdisks mount points to host selftests.
>
> Well, dont waste too much time on it (beyond the due diligence 
> level) - Andi forgot that the right way to stress-test patches is to 
> get through the review process and then through the integration 
> trees which have far more test exposure than any single contributor 
> can test.
What guideline can you offer as to what is "due diligence" level of
stress testing, as compared to delegating this task to eyeballed
reviews + incidental use on the integration trees?
- FChE
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
 
