[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51911E42.7010008@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 12:09:22 -0500
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
CC: Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
EUNBONG SONG <eunb.song@...sung.com>,
"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Subject: Re: EXT4 regression caused 4eec7
On 5/13/13 12:01 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 13-05-13 11:34:12, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 5/12/13 4:01 AM, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
>>> In fact '4eec70' are vexing because I have reviewed and tested this patch before
>>> it was marked as Review-by, but missed the bug. This is because xfstests
>>> was executed manually logs was full of warnings but tainted flag was not
>>> checked at the end.
>>
>> Can you elaborate on this? What was logged, and is it something we could
>> try to pick up post-test in xfstests?
> Generally I think it might be useful if xfstests would fail / warn if
> kernel became tainted during the test (e.g. due to WARN_ON or oops, or
> something like that). It should be even relatively easy to implement
> (just compare /proc/sys/kernel/tainted before and after each test).
>
> Honza
>
Ah, right. That should be easy, I'll see if I can cook that up.
Thanks,
-Eric
--
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