Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 14 Jan 2020 22:21:07 +0100
From:   David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>
To:     Kusanagi Kouichi <slash@ac.auone-net.jp>
Cc:     linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Implement lazytime
Message-ID: <20200114212107.GM3929@twin.jikos.cz>
Reply-To: dsterba@suse.cz
Mail-Followup-To: dsterba@suse.cz, Kusanagi Kouichi <slash@ac.auone-net.jp>,
        linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20200114085325045.JFBE.12086.ppp.dion.ne.jp@dmta0008.auone-net.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200114085325045.JFBE.12086.ppp.dion.ne.jp@dmta0008.auone-net.jp>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1-rc1 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 05:53:24PM +0900, Kusanagi Kouichi wrote:
> I tested with xfstests and lazytime didn't cause any new failures.

The changelog should describe what the patch does (the 'why' part too,
but this is obvious from the subject in this case). That fstests pass
without new failures is nice but there should be a specific test for
that or instructions in the changelog how to test.