From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Frederic Weisbecker Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Reiserfs/kill-bkl tree v2 Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 00:10:09 +0200 Message-ID: <20090805221008.GC5025@nowhere> References: <20090731174642.GA6539@nowhere> <20090801081141.GA18036@basil.fritz.box> <20090801155335.GA4836@nowhere> <20090802142100.GA21160@elte.hu> <20090803060944.GB20762@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:received:date:from:to:cc :subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=KB8XoHhZNYoRhgB1Skd8yNQeBVYNtNNxXcW1OZPMYvE=; b=PJMcaHUtT/a6UxMRZvAG829xcgHdnaupuws6VFQR9R4GKoB+GeKF3eCyJENLhBKn9N c3VziYhhzNiGSXTEqJhjSvj7JukbEn2igQBMr2gJOuRFYvvo7pK+iWrtYx5HLovMaqwZ ZKIdwZf1rMbnt9KWMXYr+GCrD7pY7JhhNtWrU= Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090803060944.GB20762@elte.hu> Sender: reiserfs-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Ingo Molnar , Al Viro Cc: "Frank Ch. Eigler" , Andi Kleen , LKML , Jeff Mahoney , Chris Mason , Alexander Beregalov , Bron Gondwana , Reiserfs , Andrea Gelmini , "Trenton D. Adams" , Thomas Meyer , Alessio Igor Bogani , Marcel Hilzinger , Edward Shishkin On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 08:09:44AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > > > Ingo Molnar 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? > > The kind of testing the VFS tree itself gets is a good starting > point i suspect - and it is a far more critical tree as it can > affects all filesystems. AFAICS the VFS tree relies on linux-next > and -mm for testing mostly and that's a good model IMO. > I've asked Al Viro to integrate this branch in the VFS tree. He wasn't opposed to that. Then I sent him the individual patches for integration in VFS but hadn't any answer since then. I've kept him cc'ed for any further patches too. If Al still agrees about this integration, I would be pleased. Frederic.