On Mon 13-05-13 11:34:12, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 5/12/13 4:01 AM, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> > In fact '4eec70' are vexing because I have reviewed and tested this patch
> > before
> > it was marked as Review-by, but missed the bug. This is because xfstests
> > was executed manually logs was full of warnings but tainted flag was not
> > checked at the end.
>
> Can you elaborate on this? What was logged, and is it something we could
> try to pick up post-test in xfstests?
Generally I think it might be useful if xfstests would fail / warn if
kernel became tainted during the test (e.g. due to WARN_ON or oops, or
something like that). It should be even relatively easy to implement
(just compare /proc/sys/kernel/tainted before and after each test).
Honza
--
Jan Kara <j...@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
