From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:35214 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752157AbdLAEND (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Nov 2017 23:13:03 -0500 Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 12:13:01 +0800 From: Eryu Guan Subject: Re: [PATCH] common: Add infrastructure for syncfs syscall tests Message-ID: <20171201041301.GB2749@eguan.usersys.redhat.com> References: <1512100554-16368-1-git-send-email-cgxu@mykernel.net> <621FF37E-8612-489C-8721-4BBC08BAB336@mykernel.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <621FF37E-8612-489C-8721-4BBC08BAB336@mykernel.net> Sender: fstests-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Chengguang Xu Cc: Amir Goldstein , fstests@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 12:04:44PM +0800, Chengguang Xu wrote: > Hi Eryu, > > Actually, in my another test case generic/470 will need to check whether fs supports syncfs or not. > I make shared infrastructure for checking that, and because it is common component > I post as an individual patch instead of including in the case of generic/470. I think "_require_xfs_io_command syncfs" should be fine, there's no need & not encouraged to add new binary & usage like this. If you want to run syncfs(2) to make sure the kernel actually supports it, you can add a new 'syncfs' switch case in _require_xfs_io_command. Thanks, Eryu