John Williams posted on Tue, 05 Nov 2013 16:20:58 -0800 as excerpted: > Is there now a verification test that could detect an issue like this? > It seems like the sort of thing that needs to be added to automated > testing.
[Your question is general enough, not mentioning xfs-tests, simply asking about general automated testing, I'm assuming a general answer is appropriate.] I haven't tracked this specific issue, but in general, the btrfs devs are pretty strict with adding an xfs-tests (NOT used for just xfs, at least btrfs and ext4 use it too) package test for any regressions they find, and people ARE regularly running those tests on new code, so past issues don't happen again. If you watch the list you'll see occasional patch rejections due to failed xfs-tests, as well as regular new xfs-tests patches adding new tests, as well as review discussion requesting an xfs-test be added as appropriate. So I'd be /very/ surprised if this bugfix didn't already have a corresponding new xfs-tests test. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- 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
