[LTP] [PATCH] save_restore: Introduce new struct field for flags

[Martin Doucha]

On 06. 11. 22 7:24, Li Wang wrote:
> This is a good thought to split the permission and respectively
> handle them, but I feel that these names are a bit ambiguous.
> 
> For example TST_SR_IGNORE_RO, I was puzzled a while when
> reading it in the below code, it can be thought of as ignoring the
> READ_ONLY permission if just from the literal meaning.

The only sensible way to ignore read-only permissions is to skip writing 
into the file. Especially when the test can run without root privileges.

> We need to find more precise names.
> 
>     +
>     +#define TST_SR_REQUIRED (TST_SR_FAIL_MISSING | TST_SR_FAIL_RO)
>     +#define TST_SR_IF_ACCESS (TST_SR_IGNORE_MISSING | TST_SR_IGNORE_RO)
> 
> 
> Here as well, especially these two will be more frequently used in 
> testcase writing.

I am open to suggestions.

>     +void tst_sys_conf_save_str(const char *path, const char *value);
> 
> 
> Do we have any other place to use tst_sys_conf_save_str?
> If no, I would suggest declaring it only as a static function
> in the tst_sys_conf.c

I'm not sure such change belongs in this patch but feel free to submit 
another patch for it.

-- 
Martin Doucha   mdoucha@suse.cz
QA Engineer for Software Maintenance
SUSE LINUX, s.r.o.
CORSO IIa
Krizikova 148/34
186 00 Prague 8
Czech Republic