From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 431F6C433EF for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2022 09:04:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 714C83C9624 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2022 10:04:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-5.smtp.seeweb.it (in-5.smtp.seeweb.it [217.194.8.5]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B056C3C31A2 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2022 10:04:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.220.28]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-5.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D2C160070C for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2022 10:04:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1860E212C8; Mon, 17 Jan 2022 09:04:12 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1642410252; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=eG4T/bx/dGCe4NvSx/Gw0LuGzfNEplf3dCGM2EbkVFs=; b=0AntgVtUBG8YZpJuBz+dzh+TgoREvabxu3KKPcKC7A8AQGGtiWMFidxc1MKwj4a61TFm9G YK16WqDDK0Ws1ziWXQDlVBPsgV1hH9yCxGvflqILIx3iFOmMbt1MUzhZzq+wsspNrhRyw1 yvAdv1sHllh4bFLRSowWs8B10tr0l20= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1642410252; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=eG4T/bx/dGCe4NvSx/Gw0LuGzfNEplf3dCGM2EbkVFs=; b=Pj8yN34gsmEx8qIuVCnqueJVZ+MQLceXsKqUMdOtCWEvTaIC3czogJYkUdvA+aORYyBge5 tSDFBIAFQotiU8CA== Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCD3C134DA; Mon, 17 Jan 2022 09:04:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id mpn6Mgsx5WHBLgAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Mon, 17 Jan 2022 09:04:11 +0000 Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2022 10:04:10 +0100 From: Petr Vorel To: Li Wang Message-ID: References: <20220114210034.16177-1-pvorel@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.4 at in-5.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] utime03.c: Fix filesystem name X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Petr Vorel Cc: LTP List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" 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