From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q6K1bJxY065007 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 20:37:19 -0500 Received: from song.cn.fujitsu.com (cn.fujitsu.com [222.73.24.84]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id qKrWWnsoVmolKZDM for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 18:37:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5008B62E.8070606@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 09:36:46 +0800 From: Liu Bo MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Xfstests/254: add more cases for testing btrfs snapshot in 254 References: <5007E0FB.9040208@cn.fujitsu.com> <20120720002433.GH23387@dastard> In-Reply-To: <20120720002433.GH23387@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 Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: Linux Btrfs , xfs-oss On 07/20/2012 08:24 AM, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 06:27:07PM +0800, Liu Bo wrote: >> From: Zhou Bo >> >> This patch adds more cases in 254 for testing btrfs snapshot. >> >> Signed-off-by: Zhou Bo > > I think it is better to create a new test than modify the old one. > That way it is easy to tell the difference between a new failure and > regression. > Sure, that makes sense. thanks, liubo > Cheers, > > Dave. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs