Very rough storage validation matrix draft

[Al Dunsmuir]

On Monday, March 17, 2014, 4:14:50 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
> I can't either, and even if I did, I don't think it would justify
> the result number explosion. Storage is storage, arch is usually completely irrelevant.

> When we're at it, why do we have both i686 and x86_64 at "Device
> tests"? A single results column for x86 should be enough. Same reasoning.

In  the  past, some filesystems have had issues handling 64-bit inodes
in  32-bit  architectures.  User  data  is  too  important  to make an
assumption that these no longer will occur.