On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 09:07:52AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> Yup. A lot of regression tests get written to tick a process box
> (i.e. did we fix regression X?), not because they provide on-going
> value to prevent future regressions. I try to push back against
> tests that won't provide us with useful protection against future
> regressions....
Yeah, that wasn't the case here. The bug was fixed by Salman Qazi at
Google in May 2012. The test was created by Eryu nearly a year later
in April 2013.
> Rather than time limiting, how about bounding the number of
> mount/unmount cycles?
Sure, that makes sense.
- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
