[LTP] [PATCH 5/5] fanotify20: Skip on v7.2

[Jan Kara]

On Wed 29-07-26 11:51:42, Petr Vorel wrote:
> > On Wed 29-07-26 11:17:17, Petr Vorel wrote:
> > > fanotify_init() used to reject FAN_REPORT_PIDFD combined with
> > > FAN_REPORT_TID with EINVAL. Since Linux v7.2, fanotify supports
> > > reporting pidfds for thread IDs, so this combination is expected to
> > > succeed.
> 
> > > The test that these flag combinations are allowed:
> > >                 FLAGS_DESC(FAN_REPORT_PIDFD | FAN_REPORT_TID),
> > > 		FLAGS_DESC(FAN_REPORT_PIDFD | FAN_REPORT_FID |
> > > 			   FAN_REPORT_DFID_NAME),
> 
> > > Because the above flag combinations are already "tested" by the tests
> > > that use them and we don't have any tests that >= 5.10 has support for
> > > FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM etc just simply skip the test on v7.2.
> 
> > > Reported-by: AnonymeMeow <anonymemeow@gmail.com>
> > > Suggested-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
> 
> > I agree with the intention. I just think that if the option is called
> > max_kver, then this suggest this is the last version where the test should
> > be run. Not the first version where the test shouldn't be run. So the name
> > is a bit confusing to me.
> 
> Good catch ...
> 
> > 								Honza
> 
> ...
> > >  static struct tst_test test = {
> > >  	.setup = do_setup,
> > > +	.max_kver = "7.2",
> 
> ... it was supposed to be:
> .max_kver = "7.1"
> 
> FYI .max_kver is a new implementation (part of the patchset, I just did not want
> to bother you with LTP internals, that's why you're Cc only on fanotify20.c
> patch) and works exactly as you suggested (run on kernel <= 7.1, skip on >= 7.2).

OK :)

> If there is no other objection with with the patchset, I'll fix this before
> merge.

Thanks! In that case feel free to add:

Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR