From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.145]:14162 "EHLO ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752057AbcFVXGy (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jun 2016 19:06:54 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 09:06:50 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] fstests: introduce _require_no_mount_opts helper Message-ID: <20160622230650.GL27480@dastard> References: <1466505629-9402-1-git-send-email-eguan@redhat.com> <20160621234202.GB27480@dastard> <20160622032351.GZ5140@eguan.usersys.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160622032351.GZ5140@eguan.usersys.redhat.com> Sender: fstests-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Eryu Guan Cc: fstests@vger.kernel.org, jack@suse.cz List-ID: On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:23:51AM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > 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. Sounds good. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com