public inbox for fstests@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH] common/xfs: change _xfs_mkfs_validation_check return logic
@ 2017-02-27  5:07 Zorro Lang
  0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Zorro Lang @ 2017-02-27  5:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: fstests; +Cc: zlang

_xfs_mkfs_validation_check() try to make sure mkfs.xfs the stricter
input checks. It runs two test command lines with illegal parameters:

  $cmd -s size=2s
  $cmd -l version=2,su=260k

The current logic think if both of them return 0 (can't find
illegal input), then it means the current xfsprogs doesn't support
the stricter input checks.

But when test on machine with 4k sector size disk, the first command
will return non-zero, and then _xfs_mkfs_validation_check() return
non-zero to _require_xfs_mkfs_validation(). The latter will assume
xfsprogs support the stricter input checks.

So I think the proper logic should be if "any" of test command lines
return 0, then it means xfsprogs can't do stricter input test.

Signed-off-by: Zorro Lang <zlang@redhat.com>
---
 common/xfs | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/common/xfs b/common/xfs
index 767a481..0eaa974 100644
--- a/common/xfs
+++ b/common/xfs
@@ -546,7 +546,7 @@ _xfs_mkfs_validation_check()
 	local sum=$?
 
 	$cmd -l version=2,su=260k >/dev/null 2>&1
-	sum=`expr $sum + $?`
+	sum=`expr $sum \* $?`
 
 	rm -f $tmpfile
 	return $sum
-- 
2.7.4


^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] only message in thread

only message in thread, other threads:[~2017-02-27  5:31 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-02-27  5:07 [PATCH] common/xfs: change _xfs_mkfs_validation_check return logic Zorro Lang

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox