linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 3/3] replace _supported_fs with _exclude

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

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250204173610.6atogxyeab7xhlli@dell-per750-06-vm-08.rhts.eng.pek2.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2025 01:36:10 +0800
From: Zorro Lang <zlang@...hat.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Zorro Lang <zlang@...nel.org>, Brian Foster <bfoster@...hat.com>,
	fstests@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] replace _supported_fs with _exclude_fs

On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 07:40:29AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 02, 2025 at 09:31:01PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote:
> > generic/730 is missed:
> > 
> >   /var/lib/xfstests/tests/generic/370: line 31: _supported_fs: command not found
> > 
> > Anyway, I'll help to change g/370 when I merge this patch.
> 
> generic/730 didn't exist when I submitted this series, you applied
> it in the same batch of patches.

Yeah, sorry it's from another patch which was in the same fstests release
with  yours :) I've fix this "conflict" and pushed, please refer to the
latest for-next branch.

Thanks,
Zorro

> 
> But it really should not skip xfs to start with.  Either the test
> is correct and XFS should fail it (and get fixed) or the test is
> incorrect and it should not be added.  I suspect it is the former
> and I'll look into fixing it.
> 
> As added in the comments in this series we should never add a
> _exclude_fs without a very good reason and comment explaining it.
>