[LTP] [PATCH 2/3] zram/zram_lib.sh: Skip test if zram module can not be removed

[Petr Vorel]

Hi Xu,

[ Cc Naresh Kamboju who added zram support to kconfig ]

> Hi Petr
> > Hi Xu,

> > ...
> >>>> ps: zram01 need to rmmod and modprobe zram. So if kernel built with
> >>>> CONFIG_ZRAM=y, we also need to TCONF. But it is another story.
> >>> +1

> > We already have v3, but I got confused here in v1, thus asking.

> >> Since zram_lib.sh uses tst_needs_driver to search module in
> >> modules.dep/modules.builtin. Maybe we can introduce a new macro
> >> TST_NEEDS_MODULES (like TST_NEEDS_DIRVERS)?
> > I got lost here, did you suggest zram_lib.sh to switch to use $TST_NEEDS_MODULE?
> Sorry, I don't know ltp shell api already have this TST_NEEDS_MODULE 
> macro and so suggest to add a new macro wrongly.

> Yes, I want to use TST_NEEDS_MODULE instead of TST_NEEDS_DIRVERS because 
> the former is more accurate.

> But it seems  our TST_NEEDS_MODULE only can check custom kernel module 
> but can't check system kernel module(like ext4.ko.xz, xfs.ext4.ko.xz).
Good catch, tst_require_module() in tst_test.sh should be fixed.
Also, if I look correctly, there is no TST_NEEDS_MODULE equivalent for C API
(probably not needed).

> ps: kconfig shell api can also do the thing by using "config_zram=m". So 
> I may use kconfig shell api in here in the feature.
FYI When Naresh Kamboju put LTP zram tests into kselftest back in 2015,
he modified it to support also zram built-in (CONFIG_ZRAM=y).

We don't support it, thus CONFIG_ZRAM=m is OK now, but we should consider to add
at least some minimal support for CONFIG_ZRAM=y.

Kind regards,
Petr

> Best Regards
> Yang Xu