From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: fche@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler) Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Reiserfs/kill-bkl tree v2 Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 19:41:01 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20090731174642.GA6539@nowhere> <20090801081141.GA18036@basil.fritz.box> <20090801155335.GA4836@nowhere> <20090802142100.GA21160@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090802142100.GA21160@elte.hu> (Ingo Molnar's message of "Sun, 2 Aug 2009 16:21:00 +0200") Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Frederic Weisbecker , Andi Kleen , LKML , Jeff Mahoney , Chris Mason , Alexander Beregalov , Bron Gondwana , Reiserfs , Al Viro , Andrea Gelmini , "Trenton D. Adams" , Thomas Meyer , Alessio Igor Bogani , Marcel Hilzinger , Edward Shishkin 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? - FChE