From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Reiserfs/kill-bkl tree v2
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 07:32:09 -0700
Message-ID: <1249223529.6114.9.camel@desktop>
References: <20090731174642.GA6539@nowhere>
	 <20090801081141.GA18036@basil.fritz.box> <20090801155335.GA4836@nowhere>
	 <20090802142100.GA21160@elte.hu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <reiserfs-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20090802142100.GA21160@elte.hu>
Sender: reiserfs-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <reiserfs-devel.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com>, Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>, Alexander Beregalov <a.beregalov@gmail.com>, Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmail.fm>, Reiserfs <reiserfs-devel@vger.kernel.org>, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, Andrea Gelmini <andrea.gelmini@gmail.com>, "Trenton D. Adams" <trenton.d.adams@gmail.com>, Thomas Meyer <thomas@m3y3r.de>, Alessio Igor Bogani <abogani@texware.it>, Marcel Hilzinger <mhilzinger@linuxnewmedia.de>, Edward Shishkin <edward.shishkin@gmail.com>

On Sun, 2009-08-02 at 16:21 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > > e.g. running all the file system stress tests from LTP would be 
> > > a good idea, ideally multiple at a time on a multi processor 
> > > system on a ram disk or perhaps AIM9.
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> Patch submitters cannot possibly test every crazy possibility that 
> is out there - nor should they: it just doesnt scale. What we expect 
> people to do is to write clean patches, to test the bits on their 
> own boxes and submit them to lkml and address specific review 
> feedback.

Is this the case for patches against drivers which the submitter doesn't
have or can't get a hold of?

Daniel