Re: [PATCH]: [xfstests] Make ext2 requirement explicit for test 049

Chandra Seetharaman
2011-06-10T19:22:43Z

Good catch.

I will reroll the patch, test it and send it again.

Thanks.

chandra
On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 13:53 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 06/10/2011 01:45 PM, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> > Test 049 depends on ext2 module being supported by the kernel.
> >
> > This patch makes it a explicit, instead of failing the test with
> > obscure message.
> >
> > Signed-Off-By: Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@us.ibm.com>
> > ---
> >
> > diff --git a/049 b/049
> > index 3d3f030..c6c4faa 100755
> > --- a/049
> > +++ b/049
> > @@ -64,6 +64,7 @@ _require_nobigloopfs
> > _require_nonexternal
> > _require_scratch
> > _require_loop
> > +_require_ext2
> >
> > rm -f $seq.full
> >
> > diff --git a/common.rc b/common.rc
> > index c510c66..531a43e 100644
> > --- a/common.rc
> > +++ b/common.rc
> > @@ -769,6 +769,23 @@ _require_loop()
> > fi
> > }
> >
> > +# this test requires ext2 filesystem support
> > +#
> > +_require_ext2()
> > +{
> > + if [ "$HOSTOS" != "Linux" ]
> > + then
> > + _notrun "This test requires linux for ext2 filesystem support"
> > + fi
> > +
> > + if modprobe ext2 >/dev/null 2>&1
>
> Does this do the right thing if ext2 is built in?
>
> If not, would :
>
> modprobe ext2 >/dev/null 2>&1
> grep ext2 /proc/filesystems ...
>
> work better?
>
> -Eric
>
> > + then
> > + :
> > + else
> > + _notrun "This test requires ext2 filesystem support"
> > + fi
> > +}
> > +
> > # this test requires that (large) loopback device files are not in use
> > #
> > _require_nobigloopfs()
> >
> >
>