Re: [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] utime03.c: Fix filesystem name

From: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
To: Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com>
Cc: LTP List <ltp@lists.linux.it>
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] utime03.c: Fix filesystem name
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2022 10:04:10 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YeUxCq4rsLX98E3d@pevik> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEemH2cMpFUz1nzq6DDfe+S-bYam3fYvb8ci=hfXHkjbfxbkeQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Li, Cyril,

> > > +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/utime/utime03.c
> > > @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ static struct tst_test test = {
> > >         .mntpoint = MNTPOINT,
> > >         .all_filesystems = 1,
> > >         .skip_filesystems = (const char *const[]) {
> > > -               "v9",
> > > +               "9p",

> > I'm wondering does it really take effect with whatever "v9" or "9p"?
> > Because the fs_type_whitelist[] does not include any of them.
+1. Do we want to add 9p to fs_type_whitelist[]? I suppose not, because (despite
of the name containing "whitelist" it's the list of filesystems actually being
tested - this is a bit confusing to me).

> Unless removing the .all_filesystems as well otherwise, it is impossible
> has a chance to test on 9p.
Yep. I forgot that .skip_filesystems works also on single fs.
So correct entry in .skip_filesystems is kind of documentation in case of
.all_filesystems being removed. I guess we should just remove the entry.

Kind regards,
Petr

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp