From: Ted Ts'o Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] e2fsck: regression tests for INCOMPAT_MMP feature Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 08:05:05 -0400 Message-ID: <20110925120505.GA14539@thunk.org> References: <1316821124-7461-1-git-send-email-adilger@whamcloud.com> <1316821124-7461-4-git-send-email-adilger@whamcloud.com> <20110924185155.GG2779@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Andreas Dilger Return-path: Received: from li9-11.members.linode.com ([67.18.176.11]:35035 "EHLO test.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752278Ab1IYMFJ (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Sep 2011 08:05:09 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 12:04:14AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: > FYI, the reason that I ordered the MMP tests in that way is because it > makes sense to verify that mke2fs can create a filesystem with the MMP > feature before using a filesystem created by mke2fs with MMP to test if > e2fsck handles it correctly. There are other e2fsck tests that use mke2fs, and for better or for worse I've never worried about test ordering. If mke2fs blows up for whatever reason, then some f_* tests will fail for reasons that have nothing to do with e2fsck. Since the test suite doesn't take that long to run, most of the time people will let the tests run to completion and the wise developer will notice the string of mke2fs failures, and decide to tackle that first. (Or it will be obvious the moment he or she looks like the failed log files.) - Ted