Re: [PATCH] ext4/048: skip test of filename wipe if journal checkpoint is not supported

[Leah Rumancik <leah.rumancik@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 10:02:24PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 11:18:45AM -0700, Leah Rumancik wrote:
> > > diff --git a/tests/ext4/048 b/tests/ext4/048
> > > index 51189618..35e6aa7f 100755
> > > --- a/tests/ext4/048
> > > +++ b/tests/ext4/048
> > > @@ -93,6 +93,14 @@ _scratch_mkfs_sized $((128 * 1024 * 1024)) >> $seqres.full 2>&1
> > >  # create scratch dir for testing
> > >  # create some files with no name a substr of another name so we can grep later
> > >  _scratch_mount >> $seqres.full 2>&1
> > > +
> > > +# Use the presence of the journal checkpoint ioctl as a proxy of filename
> > > +# wipe being supported
> > > +if test -x $here/src/checkpoint_journal && \
> > > +	! $here/src/checkpoint_journal $SCRATCH_MNT --dry-run ; then
> > > +    _notrun "filename wipe not supported"
> > > +fi
> > 
> > What if checkpoint_journal is not there? Should the test be
> > skipped in that case as well?
> 
> I went back and forth on that one.  In actual practice
> checkpoint_journal should always be built in a valid xfstests
> installation, so the case of it not existing should rarely if ever
> arise.  We don't actually _need_ checkpoint_journal to run the test;
> we're just using it as a hint as to whether the filename wipe feature
> is present.  So I decided to let the test run if we couldn't find it,
> on the theory that in the long run, all future kernels will have the
> feature.   But the case could be made in other direction....
> 
> 	       	   	      	 - Ted

Works for me.

-Leah