<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace"><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 7:53 AM Li Wang <<a href="mailto:liwang@redhat.com">liwang@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size:small"><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 1:38 PM Jan Stancek <<a href="mailto:jstancek@redhat.com" target="_blank">jstancek@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:monospace"><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 4:20 AM Li Wang <<a href="mailto:liwang@redhat.com" target="_blank">liwang@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size:small"><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 4:36 PM Jan Stancek <<a href="mailto:jstancek@redhat.com" target="_blank">jstancek@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">commit f7e33bdbd6d1 ("fs: remove mandatory file locking support")<br>
removed mandatory file locking support, but mount option<br>
is still allowed and produces no error. There's a warning<br>
in dmesg but it's pr_warn_once() so we can't rely to always<br>
find it there.<br>
<br>
Make the test check also for CONFIG_MANDATORY_FILE_LOCKING=y.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div style="font-size:small">I'm wondering, if the SUT without CONFIG_MANDATORY_FILE_LOCKING</div><div style="font-size:small">enabling, why the mount-check in setup() didn't report EPERM?</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div style="font-family:monospace">Because kernel commit
<span>f7e33bdbd6d1 removed that code, it generates</span></div><div style="font-family:monospace"><span>warning message instead.</span></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div style="font-size:small">Ok, I see.</div></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div style="font-family:monospace"><br></div></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div style="font-size:small"><br></div><div style="font-size:small">And, should we drop the mount-check for EPERM from setup after adding</div><div style="font-size:small">this .needs_kconfigs?</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div style="font-family:monospace">I'd keep it, it doesn't hurt anything and older kernels could get EPERM</div><div style="font-family:monospace">for other reason (like running test in namespace where you don't have CAP_SYS_ADMIN)</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style="font-size:small">Sure, that sounds acceptable too.</div><div style="font-size:small"><br></div><div style="font-size:small">Reviewed-by: Li Wang <<a href="mailto:liwang@redhat.com" target="_blank">liwang@redhat.com</a>></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div style="font-family:monospace" class="gmail_default">Pushed.</div></div><br></div></div>