[LTP] [PATCH] [COMMITTED] syscalls/fcntl33: Fix typo overlapfs -> overlayfs

[J. Bruce Fields]

On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 08:26:24PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 7:46 PM J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 06:42:12PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 4:45 PM Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>
> > > > ---
> > > >  testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl33.c | 2 +-
> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl33.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl33.c
> > > > index 43dc5a2af..627823c5c 100644
> > > > --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl33.c
> > > > +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl33.c
> > > > @@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ static void do_test(unsigned int i)
> > > >         if (TST_RET == -1) {
> > > >                 if (type == TST_OVERLAYFS_MAGIC && TST_ERR == EAGAIN) {
> > > >                         tst_res(TINFO | TTERRNO,
> > > > -                               "fcntl(F_SETLEASE, F_WRLCK) failed on overlapfs as expected");
> > > > +                               "fcntl(F_SETLEASE, F_WRLCK) failed on overlayfs as expected");
> > >
> > > You have 3 more of this typo in fcntl tests.
> > >
> > > If you ask me, silencing this error seems wrong.
> > > While the error is *expected* it is still a broken interface.
> > > It may be just a matter of terminology, but I am reading this message as:
> > >
> > > TEST PASSED: Overlayfs failed as expected
> > >
> > > While it really should be more along the lines of:
> > >
> > > TEST SKIPPED: Overlayfs doesn't support write leased
> > >
> > > Besides, this problem looks quite easy to fix.
> > > I think Bruce was already looking at changing the implementation of
> > > check_conflicting_open(), so if the test is not failing, nobody is going to
> > > nudge for a fix...
> >
> > Um, I remember that discussion but I can't remember what the obstacles
> > were in the end.  Trying to find that thread....
> >
> 
> i_readcount exists, but its with #ifdef CONFIG_IMA and it counts
> only O_RDONLY users.
> 
> It wouldn't increase struct inode if we always have i_readcount for
> 64bit arch.
> 
> I think F_WRLCK should require i_readcount == 0 && i_writecount == 1.
> 
> Can't remember if and why you needed the readers count?

We don't want to grant a write lease while somebody holds a read open.

This is the last message on the previous thread that I was thinking of:

	https://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=155026138713969&w=2

I haven't gotten back to it since then.

--b.