> If you answer is "don't do this" then how the hell your
> experience is relevant to topic?
XFSQA tests 136-140, 178 and a couple of others "do this"
explicitly and have done so for a couple of years now. This failure
scenario is tested every single time XFSQA is run by a developer.
Run those tests on 2.6.21 and they will fail. Run them on 2.6.22
and they will pass...
FWIW, XFS is alone in the fact that it has:
a) a publicly available automated regression test suite;
b) a test suite that is run all the time by developers;
c) ioctls and built-in framework to simulate the effect of
power-off crashes that the QA tests use.
This doesn't mean XFS is perfect, but it does mean that it is known
immediately when a regression appears and where we need improvements
to be made.
IOWs, we can *prove* that the (once) commonly seen problems in XFS
have been fixed and will remain fixed. It would be nice if people
recognised this rather relevant fact instead of flaming
indiscriminately about stuff that has been fixed....