[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOQ4uxiax3v03XeSP-MRHUqx5WTa67qOjtusSw=M-Tk0zARv6w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2026 12:34:18 +0100
From: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
To: Jinseok Kim <always.starving0@...il.com>
Cc: jack@...e.cz, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, repnop@...gle.com, shuah@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] selftests: fanotify: Add basic create/modify/delete event
On Thu, Feb 5, 2026 at 11:05 AM Jinseok Kim <always.starving0@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the feedback!
>
> I agree LTP has very comprehensive fanotify/inotify tests.
>
> However, the motivation for adding basic tests to kernel selftests is:
> - Quick and lightweight regression checking during kernel
> development/boot (no external LTP install needed)
> - Non-root basic cases (many LTP tests require root or complex setup)
>
> Similar to how selftests/mm or selftests/net have basic syscall wrappers
> even though LTP covers them deeply.
>
If you just want to add some basic sanity tests, maybe this is ok, but...
> Do you think a different approach (LTP improvement instead)
> would be better?
>
Using the word "improvement" here suggest that you want more than
basic sanity and if you want more than basic sanity then by all means,
we do not want to duplicate all of the test LTP test coverage here
so please invest your time in improving LTP tests coverage.
mount-notify was written as selftest because there was no good infrastructure
to test user namespaces in LTP.
If anything, I would recommend trying to move those selftests to LTP.
Thanks,
Amir.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists