From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtpbg64.qq.com ([103.7.28.238]:30773 "EHLO smtpbg64.qq.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750892AbdLAGqT (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Dec 2017 01:46:19 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gb2312 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.1 \(3445.4.7\)) Subject: Re: [PATCH] common: Add infrastructure for syncfs syscall tests From: Chengguang Xu In-Reply-To: <20171201041301.GB2749@eguan.usersys.redhat.com> Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 14:38:57 +0800 Message-Id: References: <1512100554-16368-1-git-send-email-cgxu@mykernel.net> <621FF37E-8612-489C-8721-4BBC08BAB336@mykernel.net> <20171201041301.GB2749@eguan.usersys.redhat.com> Sender: fstests-owner@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: Eryu Guan Cc: Amir Goldstein , fstests@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > =D4=DA 2017=C4=EA12=D4=C21=C8=D5=A3=AC=CF=C2=CE=E712:13=A3=ACEryu Guan = =D0=B4=B5=C0=A3=BA >=20 > On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 12:04:44PM +0800, Chengguang Xu wrote: >> Hi Eryu, >>=20 >> Actually, in my another test case generic/470 will need to check wheth= er fs supports syncfs or not.=20 >> I make shared infrastructure for checking that, and because it is comm= on component=20 >> I post as an individual patch instead of including in the case of gene= ric/470. >=20 > I think "_require_xfs_io_command syncfs" should be fine, there's no nee= d > & not encouraged to add new binary & usage like this. If you want to ru= n > syncfs(2) to make sure the kernel actually supports it, you can add a > new 'syncfs' switch case in _require_xfs_io_command. >=20 Failure of _require_xfs_io_command check leads to notrun, if we have seve= ral sync patterns(combination of fsync/fdatasync/syncfs/sync) in an actual te= st case,=20 the case will lose downward compatibility for old kernel. In this situation, we have to split test case though they look similar. Thanks=A3=AC Chengguang.