Re: [PATCH fstests v2 1/3] generic/294: don't run this test on NFS

[Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>]

On Sat, 2023-09-02 at 03:19 +0800, Zorro Lang wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 01:39:55PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > When creating a new dentry (of any type), NFS will optimize away any
> > on-the-wire lookups prior to the create since that means an extra
> > round trip to the server. Because of that, it consistently fails this
> > test.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
> > ---
> >  tests/generic/294 | 6 ++++--
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/tests/generic/294 b/tests/generic/294
> > index 406b1b3954b9..46c7001234a5 100755
> > --- a/tests/generic/294
> > +++ b/tests/generic/294
> > @@ -15,8 +15,10 @@ _begin_fstest auto quick
> >  
> >  # real QA test starts here
> >  
> > -# Modify as appropriate.
> > -_supported_fs generic
> > +# NFS will optimize away the on-the-wire lookup before attempting to
> > +# create a new file (since that means an extra round trip).
> > +_supported_fs ^nfs generic
> 
> If we use black list, don't need to use "generic" to specify white list. E.g.
> 
>   $ grep -rsn _supported_fs tests/generic/|grep \\^
>   tests/generic/699:25:_supported_fs ^overlay
>   tests/generic/631:41:_supported_fs ^overlay
>   tests/generic/679:27:_supported_fs ^xfs
>   tests/generic/500:45:_supported_fs ^btrfs
> 
> Anyway, others look good to me, if no objection from nfs list, I can help
> to merge this patchset without the "generic" :)
> 

Ok, I was looking at the _support_fs implementation and it looked like
you needed a "generic" entry on the end or it wouldn't pass for other
fs, but if you're sure, that sounds good to me.

Thanks!
-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>