On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 08:17:57PM +0100, Jan Schmidt wrote: > 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.
The current way is to use a common.<blah> file to do it. However, using test templates is the way I want to do it in future - it will be perfect for these sorts of test variations: http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-03/msg00578.html Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com -- 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
