[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <198c74541c8.c835b65275081.1338200284666207736@zohomail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2025 15:37:41 +0400
From: Askar Safin <safinaskar@...omail.com>
To: "Aleksa Sarai" <cyphar@...har.com>
Cc: "alx" <alx@...nel.org>, "brauner" <brauner@...nel.org>,
"dhowells" <dhowells@...hat.com>,
"g.branden.robinson" <g.branden.robinson@...il.com>,
"jack" <jack@...e.cz>, "linux-api" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-man" <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>,
"mtk.manpages" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
"viro" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, "Ian Kent" <raven@...maw.net>,
"autofs mailing list" <autofs@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/12] man2: document "new" mount API
---- On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 20:16:04 +0400 Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com> wrote ---
> They are not tested by fstests AFAICS, but that's more of a flaw in
> fstests (automount requires you to have a running autofs daemon, which
> probably makes testing it in fstests or selftests impractical) not the
> feature itself.
I suggest testing automounts in fstests/selftests using "tracing" automount.
This is what I do in my reproducers.
> The automount behaviour of tracefs is different to the general automount
> mechanism which is managed by userspace with the autofs daemon.
Yes. But I still was able to write reproducers using "tracing", so this
automount point is totally okay for tests. (At least for some tests,
such as RESOLVE_NO_XDEV.)
--
Askar Safin
https://types.pl/@safinaskar
Powered by blists - more mailing lists