[LTP] [PATCH v2 1/2] syscalls/fanotify20: add new test for FAN_REPORT_PIDFD

[Matthew Bobrowski]

On Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 01:02:48PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 12:57 PM Matthew Bobrowski <repnop@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > This test ensures that the fanotify API returns the expected error
> > status code -EINVAL when an invalid flag is supplied alongside the new
> > FAN_REPORT_PIDFD initialization flag. Currently, FAN_REPORT_TID is the
> > only initialization flag that is not permitted in conjunction with
> > FAN_REPORT_PIDFD, so we explicitly provide test coverage for this.
> >
> > We also add an extra trivial test case to ensure that the
> > initialization behavior with the other FAN_REPORT_* related flags is
> > working as intended.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Matthew Bobrowski <repnop@google.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > Changes since v1:
> >  - Introduced a new macro
> >    REQUIRE_FANOTIFY_INIT_FLAGS_SUPPORTED_BY_KERNEL() that is
> >    responsible for testing whether the supplied initialization flags
> >    are supported by the underlying kernel. This is used from
> >    do_setup(). Using this is less ambiguous then using something like
> >    REQUIRE_FANOTIFY_INIT_FLAGS_SUPPORTED_ON_FS().
> 
> Not like this.
> Please start your branch with the first two prep patches from
> Gabriel's LTP post (including my reviewed-by tag) preserving
> Gabriel's authorship and signed-of-by and adding your own
> signed-off-by.
> 
> Your LTP tests are expected to be merged before Gabriel's test
> because your tests are for a 5.15 feature.
> Once your tests are merge, Gabriel would be able to rebase on master
> and drop his prep patches.

Am I reading all the words, or only some of the words?

AFAICT, the macro that I've defined here is different to that of what
has been implemented in Gabriel's series.

/M