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 864C77F3F for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 14:18:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74AD7304051 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 12:18:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.in8.de (brockman.in8.de [85.214.220.56]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id MgDcyLsciKaoe6Ls for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 12:18:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5148B9E5.5000702@jan-o-sch.net> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 20:17:57 +0100 From: Jan Schmidt MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: add background noise to test 276 (btrfs backref resolving) References: <1363710260-10225-1-git-send-email-list.btrfs@jan-o-sch.net> <51489BD6.6030504@sandeen.net> In-Reply-To: <51489BD6.6030504@sandeen.net> 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: Eric Sandeen Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, alex.btrfs@zadarastorage.com, xfs@oss.sgi.com On 19.03.2013 18:09, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> Furthermore, this increases two constants which make the test simply cycle a >> few seconds longer, increasing the chance to hit on something suspicious in >> case we broke something. > > Normally we don't change existing tests lest new failures look like regressions > when they aren't, but hey, "btrfs is an experimental filesystem" so maybe it's > ok in this case. ;) At some point when things are settled down, we wouldn't > want to make a change like this. But for now it doesn't bother me. (justification) I thought about adding this modification as a separate test - and I have no strict objections against doing so. It's just that I hate duplicating code and I couldn't think of a good way to share all that code between two individual tests. Plus: We do need the new version, because it shows backref walking in fact is currently broken, while the old version would never fail where the new one wouldn't. Thanks for taking a look! -Jan _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs