From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 465D77F74 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 09:27:11 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41082304053 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 07:27:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imap.thunk.org (imap.thunk.org [74.207.234.97]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id TEqrA97YU8eSpROJ (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 02 Apr 2014 07:27:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 10:26:20 -0400 From: Theodore Ts'o Subject: Re: [Lsf] [PATCH] xfstests-bld: Simplify determination of number of CPUs in build-all Message-ID: <20140402142620.GA6901@thunk.org> References: <1395997399-3000-1-git-send-email-sedat.dilek@gmail.com> <20140328161806.GA31772@thunk.org> <20140331025148.GF16336@dastard> <20140401023711.GE4911@thunk.org> <20140401222823.GJ17603@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140401222823.GJ17603@dastard> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: Sedat Dilek , lsf@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 09:28:23AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > And of course, whether changes in the mainline kernel tree are > > manually propagated changes from the xfstests.git tree, or whether > > primary development happens in the kernel tree, is ultimately going to > > be up to you and the XFS developers who have stewardship of xfstests. > > I'm not sure I would be that excited about manual propagation of > > changes from one git tree to another, but that is of course, up to > > you. > > And this is exactly my point, Ted. Again, you are presuming that the > implementation is going to require syncing commits across disparate > git trees and other such games will be needed to maintain separate > packages. Nothing could be further from the truth: we already have > this problem with the shared XFS kernel/userspace code and it's a > royal PITA keeping them in sync. Hence introducing the same > maintenance problem with new code and infrastructure is highly > undesirable and something we'll try to avoid at all costs. Actually, I was presuming that the thing that makes the most sense was to move all or most of the tests in xfstests into the kernel tests tree. And then you complained that I was making a presumption that this was the only sane thing to do. That's why I said, "if you want to do something insane, be my guest". I have nothing against doing a formal requirements process, that's fine, but I think there are certain things about what the final solution of "test in the kernel git tree" will look like that are pretty obvious. Cheers, - Ted _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs