From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com>
Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25])
	by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id
	p5H0RFla076627 for <xfs@oss.sgi.com>; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 19:27:16 -0500
Received: from mail.sandeen.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id E73EB10DA3
	for <xfs@oss.sgi.com>; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 17:27:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sandeen.net (sandeen.net [63.231.237.45]) by cuda.sgi.com
	with ESMTP id KwztZCeTUBW9H3aH for <xfs@oss.sgi.com>;
	Thu, 16 Jun 2011 17:27:14 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4DFA9F61.60007@sandeen.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 19:27:13 -0500
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH]: [xfstests] Make the requirement of projid32bit explicit
	in test 244
References: <1308100206.7661.486.camel@chandra-lucid.beaverton.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <1308100206.7661.486.camel@chandra-lucid.beaverton.ibm.com>
List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI <xfs.oss.sgi.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/options/xfs>,
	<mailto:xfs-request@oss.sgi.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://oss.sgi.com/pipermail/xfs>
List-Post: <mailto:xfs@oss.sgi.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xfs-request@oss.sgi.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs>,
	<mailto:xfs-request@oss.sgi.com?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com
Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com
To: sekharan@us.ibm.com
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>, XFS Mailing List <xfs@oss.sgi.com>

On 6/14/11 8:10 PM, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> Test 244 depends on projid32bit feature in mkfs.xfs. Not all versions
> of xfsprogs provide that feature in mkfs.xfs.
> 
> This patch makes it an explicit requirement and avoids running the test
> if the feature doesn't exist, instead of failing the test with an obscure
> message.
> 
> Signed-Off-By: Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@us.ibm.com>

This is fine; I'd prefer to check it in with just _require_projid32bit
and drop the _in_xfs if that's ok with you, it's an xfs-only test
anyway so it's just a bit wordy :)

Thanks,
-Eric

> ---
> diff --git a/244 b/244
> index 99762a5..e9f8a3d 100755
> --- a/244
> +++ b/244
> @@ -48,6 +48,7 @@ _cleanup()
>  _supported_fs xfs
>  _require_xfs_quota
>  _require_scratch
> +_require_projid32bit_in_xfs
>  
>  export MOUNT_OPTIONS="-opquota"
>  
> diff --git a/common.rc b/common.rc
> index c510c66..4e051dc 100644
> --- a/common.rc
> +++ b/common.rc
> @@ -797,6 +797,15 @@ _require_command()
>      [ -n "$1" -a -x "$1" ] || _notrun "$_cmd utility required, skipped this test"
>  }
>  
> +# this test requires the projid32bit feature to be available in
> +# mkfs.xfs
> +#
> +_require_projid32bit_in_xfs()
> +{
> +        _scratch_mkfs_xfs -f -i projid32bit=0 2>&1 >/dev/null \
> +	   || _notrun "mkfs.xfs doesn't have projid32bit feature"
> +}
> +
>  # this test requires that external log/realtime devices are not in use
>  #
>  _require_nonexternal()
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@oss.sgi.com
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
> 

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs