[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87tuk3ef3g.fsf@collabora.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2021 17:50:11 -0400
From: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...labora.com>
To: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
Cc: LTP List <ltp@...ts.linux.it>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
Ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
Khazhismel Kumykov <khazhy@...gle.com>, kernel@...labora.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] syscalls/fanotify20: Test file event with broken inode
Hi Amir,
thanks for the review.
Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com> writes:
> Well, I would not expect a FAN_FS_ERROR event to ever have 0 error
> value. Since this test practically only tests ext4, I do not think it
> is reasonable
> for the test to VERIFY a bug. It is fine to write this test with expectations
> that are not met and let it fail.
This gave me a good chuckle. :) I will check for a
EXT4_ERR_EFSCORRUPTED and propose a fix on ext4.
>
> But a better plan would probably be to merge the patches up to 5 to test
> FAN_FS_ERROR and then add more test cases after ext4 is fixed
> Either that or you fix the ext4 problem along with FAN_FS_ERROR.
>
> Forgot to say that the test needs to declare .needs_cmds "debugfs".
>
> In any case, as far as prerequisite to merging FAN_FS_ERROR
> your WIP tests certainly suffice.
> Please keep your test branch around so we can use it to validate
> the kernel patches.
> I usually hold off on submitting LTP tests for inclusion until at least -rc3
> after kernel patches have been merged.
As requested, I will not send a new version of the test for now. I
published them on the following unstable branch:
https://gitlab.collabora.com/krisman/ltp -b fan-fs-error
The v1, as submitted in this thread is also available at:
https://gitlab.collabora.com/krisman/ltp -b fan-fs-error-v1
Thanks,
--
Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists