From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:55992 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751347AbcFVDXx (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jun 2016 23:23:53 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:23:51 +0800 From: Eryu Guan Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] fstests: introduce _require_no_mount_opts helper Message-ID: <20160622032351.GZ5140@eguan.usersys.redhat.com> References: <1466505629-9402-1-git-send-email-eguan@redhat.com> <20160621234202.GB27480@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160621234202.GB27480@dastard> Sender: fstests-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Dave Chinner Cc: fstests@vger.kernel.org, jack@suse.cz List-ID: On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 09:42:02AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 06:40:28PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > > Some tests require that there's no certain mount option, so > > introduce a new helper _require_no_mount_opts() to do the check on > > $MOUNT_OPTIONS. > > I think this is fine, except for the name. It's more of an exclude > rule rather than a "require" rule. i.e. _exclude_mount_option() is > closer to it's purpose. This does look better to me, thanks! > > The only other question I have is that mount options can be > different between test and scratch devices - the test device mount > options can be set via TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS, as well as via > MOUNT_OPTIONS. Does this rule need to handle that? I didn't think about TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS. Currently there's no need to handle it, MOUNT_OPTIONS is sufficient I think. How about I rename it to _exclude_scratch_mount_option()? And we can always add another _exclude_test_mount_option() if needed in future. Thanks, Eryu