From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Tue, 22 Jul 2008 21:17:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.168.28]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m6N4HR01020191 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 21:17:27 -0700 Received: from ipmail01.adl6.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 5AF13E87C97 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 21:18:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail01.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail01.adl6.internode.on.net [203.16.214.146]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id qKSbxOkD9eSrcDRi for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 21:18:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:18:32 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] XFS: Use the inode tree for finding dirty inodes Message-ID: <20080723041832.GH5947@disturbed> References: <1216556394-17529-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1216556394-17529-3-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20080722042829.GB27123@infradead.org> <20080722053019.GI6761@disturbed> <20080722072733.GA15376@infradead.org> <20080723000548.GG5947@disturbed> <488692FB.1010101@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <488692FB.1010101@sgi.com> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Mark Goodwin Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 12:10:03PM +1000, Mark Goodwin wrote: > > > Dave Chinner wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 03:27:33AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>> ... >>> I only fear >>> we'll never get it in with the current review and commit latencies >>> for XFS :( >> >> I can see this being a big issue in the not-too-distant future..... > > [getting off-topic for this thread, but anyway ..] > This is already a big issue, obviously, and has been for some time. > > Internally, we're attempting to refine our patch acceptance processes, > (e.g. gitify our internal dev tree and mirror it on oss so it's much > easier to push back out to oss). But the QA overhead remains a stubborn > problem. I think we're going to have to ask for QA tests (both regression > and performance) to be written as part of the patch acceptance policy - > under this policy, merely passing existing QA will not be sufficient. > Comments? In general - unnecessary because most changes submitted don't change behaviour or interfaces or that subsystem/behaviour is already tested by the QA suite. For new features with externally visable interfaces (the rare case) then requiring new tests is just fine. In reality - the community will route around SGI and go straight to Andrew or Linus if this proves to be a burden. Passing XFSQA is a significant indication that the change is as good as the developer can do in their own environment; if it passes review then at that point it needs wider QA, and that comes from committing to *public repositories* so that and varied workloads and machines stress the code. If QA is a burden, it's because you're not allowing the wider community easy access to the dev code to test at an early stage. A dev tree is *meant to break*, it's not a prodution environment. Gett eh code out there early and distribute the QA workload, don't make it a burden on the developers or a bottleneck to getting code accepted. > We have recently set up external access to a system for QA and > regression testing for Christoph's use .. perhaps that should > be a permanent offering? Yes. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com