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

[Martin Doucha]

On 11. 11. 22 10:47, Jan Stancek wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> We need to find more precise names.
> 
> Would TST_SR_SKIP_RO be clearer?
> 
>>> +
>>> +#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.
> 
> Maybe TST_SR_COND_ACCESS - which slightly longer

Sounds good, I'll send v2 with both flag changes shortly.

-- 
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