[LTP] [PATCH v4] syscalls/statx09: Add new test

[Petr Vorel]

Hi all,

> Hi!
> > > +static void run(unsigned int i)
> > > +{
> > > +	tcases[i].tfunc();
> > > +}
> > OT: we may lack something in the API, when function like this need to be
> > defined.

> See:

> https://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/2017-October/005829.html
> https://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/2017-July/005132.html
https://lore.kernel.org/ltp/860483630.25581747.1507017497043.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com/
https://lore.kernel.org/ltp/20170727081437.27995-1-chrubis@suse.cz/

Very nice that you remember your old work :) (we didn't have patchwork back then).

Now I remember it - you already implemented it in 5 years old RFC, Jan didn't
see a value and that's why it haven't been merged.

Yes, Jan is right that it complicates code a bit, but even if you replace this
code:

statx09.c
static struct test_cases {
    void (*tfunc)(void);
} tcases[] = {
    {&test_flagged},
    {&test_unflagged},
};

static void run(unsigned int i)
{
    tcases[i].tfunc();
}

with .test_all where you have the switch it still kind of boilerplate. Thus I
agree with cyrils argument:

https://lore.kernel.org/ltp/20171003125958.GB11692@rei/

	"aiming to avoid the need to have a switch () in each testcase that
	implements a similar tests but cannot be easily data driven (as we do
	for most of tests that loop over an array of structures describing the
	test data)"

Thus, not sure if we want to rething the implementation, but I'd be for adding
the support (sure doc and docparse adoption would need to be added but that's
obvious).

Kind regards,
Petr