Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] fstests: introduce _require_no_mount_opts helper

[Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 12:50:19PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 09:06:50AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Hi Dave,
> 
> My v4 patches simply rename the helper to this
> "_exclude_scratch_mount_option", no function change. Then I take your
> reviews as a "Reviewed-by" tag based on "I think this is fine, except for
> the name." and the above "Sounds good.". So I can queue them for next
> pull request and start release testing, and don't have to bother you
> providing an explicit reviewed-by.

Yup - it's better to ask thn assume, though, so:

Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com