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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
