[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <97f31b70-e3ff-f194-c753-54da1fe3e664@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 13:43:14 +0200
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To: Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@...rovitsch.priv.at>,
linux-raid@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Guoqing Jiang <gqjiang@...e.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
Joe Perches <coupons@...ches.com>,
Mike Christie <mchristi@...hat.com>,
Neil Brown <neilb@...e.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>,
Tomasz Majchrzak <tomasz.majchrzak@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, kbuild-all@...org,
ltp@...ts.linux.it
Subject: Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?
>>> See above. At the moment _any_ test result from your side would do.
>>
>> I imagine that another single result might not be representative.
>
> Publish not only results but also everything (complete!) so that anyone
> can *easily* follow it to check and reproduce the results - especially
> if you want people with knowledge of other architectures to comment
> (otherwise they probably won't bother).
Am I the only software developer so far who would dare to reconsider
implementation details from three status functions?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists