From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from imap.thunk.org ([74.207.234.97]:35034 "EHLO imap.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751274AbbHRBSK (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Aug 2015 21:18:10 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 21:18:07 -0400 From: "Theodore Ts'o" Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: ratelimit the file system mounted message Message-ID: <20150818011807.GC7535@thunk.org> References: <1439665197-10766-1-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> <20150817011215.GA714@dastard> <20150817145056.GC27202@thunk.org> <20150817230752.GB3902@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150817230752.GB3902@dastard> Sender: fstests-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Dave Chinner Cc: Ext4 Developers List , Eryu Guan , fstests@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 09:07:52AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > Yup. A lot of regression tests get written to tick a process box > (i.e. did we fix regression X?), not because they provide on-going > value to prevent future regressions. I try to push back against > tests that won't provide us with useful protection against future > regressions.... Yeah, that wasn't the case here. The bug was fixed by Salman Qazi at Google in May 2012. The test was created by Eryu nearly a year later in April 2013. > Rather than time limiting, how about bounding the number of > mount/unmount cycles? Sure, that makes sense. - Ted