On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:09:22 -0500, Eric Sandeen <sand...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 5/13/13 12:01 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
> > 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
> >
>
> Ah, right. That should be easy, I'll see if I can cook that up.
Also we can use abrt's kernel-oops handler to collect messages.
>
> Thanks,
> -Eric
> --
> 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/
--
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/
