[LTP] [PATCH] tst_supported_fs: Implement checking paths against skiplist

[Li Wang]

On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 5:03 PM Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> > > Although the tst_fs_type_name() functions could use some improvements,
> > > e.g. ext4 must be specified in skiplist as "ext2/ext3/ext4" to get
> properly
>
> > Yes, that's true, we need to make it keep consistent with two
> > skipping ways. Otherwise below test output "ext2/ext3/ext4"
> > looks like a bit mess to remember.
>
> > Better going with a single FS for matching (i.e. "ext4" for both fs_type
> > and '-d path').
> > But we can solve this in a separate patch later.
>
> > $ df -T . | tail -1 | awk '{print $2}'
> > ext4
>
> > $ ./tst_supported_fs -s "ext4" ext4
> > tst_supported_fs.c:135: TCONF: ext4 is skipped
> > $ echo $?
> > 32
>
> > $ ./tst_supported_fs -s "ext4" -d .
> > tst_supported_fs.c:137: TINFO: ext2/ext3/ext4 is not skipped
> > $ echo $?
> > 0
>
> > $ ./tst_supported_fs -s "ext2/ext3/ext4" -d .
> > tst_supported_fs.c:135: TCONF: ext2/ext3/ext4 is skipped
> > $ echo $?
> > 32
>
> The same problem is for .skip_filesystems on tests which does not use
> .all_filesystems. We only haven't noticed, because there was no reason to
> skip
> ext[234] so far. I'm looking into this.
>

This seems a bit tricky to distinguish EXT2,3,4, from what I know,
they use the same magic number. It will be difficult to get the
FS block and extract smaller granularity of feature without
using fs helper tools.



>
> BTW .skip_filesystems without .all_filesystems have other problems, e.g.
> using
> filesystems which aren't in fs_type_whitelist[] array (e.g. ramfs, nfs).
> That'd be nice to fix after the release.
>

+1


-- 
Regards,
Li Wang
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/attachments/20220922/6e08ff6a/attachment.htm>