[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250825160801.ffktqauw2o6l5ql3@dell-per750-06-vm-08.rhts.eng.pek2.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2025 00:08:01 +0800
From: Zorro Lang <zlang@...hat.com>
To: Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: fstests@...r.kernel.org, Ritesh Harjani <ritesh.list@...il.com>,
djwong@...nel.org, john.g.garry@...cle.com, tytso@....edu,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 02/12] common/rc: Add _require_fio_version helper
On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 01:32:01PM +0530, Ojaswin Mujoo wrote:
> The main motivation of adding this function on top of _require_fio is
> that there has been a case in fio where atomic= option was added but
> later it was changed to noop since kernel didn't yet have support for
> atomic writes. It was then again utilized to do atomic writes in a later
> version, once kernel got the support. Due to this there is a point in
> fio where _require_fio w/ atomic=1 will succeed even though it would
> not be doing atomic writes.
>
> Hence, add an explicit helper to ensure tests to require specific
> versions of fio to work past such issues.
Actually I'm wondering if fstests really needs to care about this. This's
just a temporary issue of fio, not kernel or any fs usespace program. Do
we need to add a seperated helper only for a temporary fio issue? If fio
doesn't break fstests running, let it run. Just the testers install proper
fio (maybe latest) they need. What do you and others think?
Thanks,
Zorro
>
> Signed-off-by: Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com>
> ---
> common/rc | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc
> index 35a1c835..f45b9a38 100644
> --- a/common/rc
> +++ b/common/rc
> @@ -5997,6 +5997,38 @@ _max() {
> echo $ret
> }
>
> +# Check the required fio version. Examples:
> +# _require_fio_version 3.38 (matches 3.38 only)
> +# _require_fio_version 3.38+ (matches 3.38 and above)
> +# _require_fio_version 3.38- (matches 3.38 and below)
> +_require_fio_version() {
> + local req_ver="$1"
> + local fio_ver
> +
> + _require_fio
> + _require_math
> +
> + fio_ver=$(fio -v | cut -d"-" -f2)
> +
> + case "$req_ver" in
> + *+)
> + req_ver=${req_ver%+}
> + test $(_math "$fio_ver >= $req_ver") -eq 1 || \
> + _notrun "need fio >= $req_ver (found $fio_ver)"
> + ;;
> + *-)
> + req_ver=${req_ver%-}
> + test $(_math "$fio_ver <= $req_ver") -eq 1 || \
> + _notrun "need fio <= $req_ver (found $fio_ver)"
> + ;;
> + *)
> + req_ver=${req_ver%-}
> + test $(_math "$fio_ver == $req_ver") -eq 1 || \
> + _notrun "need fio = $req_ver (found $fio_ver)"
> + ;;
> + esac
> +}
> +
> ################################################################################
> # make sure this script returns success
> /bin/true
> --
> 2.49.0
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists