lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <5ED61324.6010300@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 16:51:48 +0800 From: Xiao Yang <yangx.jy@...fujitsu.com> To: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com> CC: <ira.weiny@...el.com>, <fstests@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>, <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs/XXX: Add xfs/XXX On 2020/4/14 0:30, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > This might be a good time to introduce a few new helpers: > > _require_scratch_dax ("Does $SCRATCH_DEV support DAX?") > _require_scratch_dax_mountopt ("Does the fs support the DAX mount options?") > _require_scratch_daX_iflag ("Does the fs support FS_XFLAG_DAX?") Hi Darrick, Now, I am trying to introduce these new helpers and have some questions: 1) There are five testcases related to old dax implementation, should we only convert them to new dax implementation or make them compatible with old and new dax implementation? 2) I think _require_xfs_io_command "chattr" "x" is enough to check if fs supports FS_XFLAG_DAX. Is it necessary to add _require_scratch_dax_iflag()? like this: _require_scratch_dax_iflag() { _require_xfs_io_command "chattr" "x" } Best Regards, Xiao Yang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists