On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 01:29:39AM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 11:00:49PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 12:50:06PM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> > > SCSI device blacklisting seems to be a tricky subject, with
> > > lots of potential for messing
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 11:00:49PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 12:50:06PM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> > SCSI device blacklisting seems to be a tricky subject, with
> > lots of potential for messing up the selection algorithm.
> > This adds a test for catching
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 12:50:06PM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> SCSI device blacklisting seems to be a tricky subject, with
> lots of potential for messing up the selection algorithm.
> This adds a test for catching regressions here.
I'm waiting to see how the patches end up before applying
On Wed, 2017-08-09 at 12:50 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> +requires() {
> +if modinfo scsi_debug | grep -q inq_vendor ; then
> + return 0
> +fi
> +return 1
> +}
How about changing the above four statements into the following, which is
shorter and more robust?
modinfo scsi_debug
SCSI device blacklisting seems to be a tricky subject, with
lots of potential for messing up the selection algorithm.
This adds a test for catching regressions here.
Signed-off-by: Hannes Reinecke
---
tests/scsi/001 | 69 ++
5 matches
Mail list logo