[LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/fanotify: new test for mount ignore mask

[Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>]

Hi!
> All right. I have already written this test with a test index to cover
> all possible
> mixes of mark types include and exclude masks:
> https://github.com/amir73il/ltp/blob/fanotify_sb/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify13.c
> This gives better coverage than fanotify06 and fanotify10 combined.
> 
> However, if I modify test fanotify06 instead of forking test fanotify10, the
> test (fanotify06) is going to start failing on non-master kernels.
> Is that acceptable for LTP? I am asking because in fstests project, we have
> the practice not to change an existing test to failing. When we find a
> new regression we write a new variant of the test for it.

We do not have a rule lik this but it sounds like a reasonable rule to
me, since when existing test starts to fail it does look like a
regression in the tests itself.

> If changing an existing test to cover more cases is appropriate than I am
> going to generalize fanotify06 (as fanotify13 linked above) and then
> when FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM mark type support is added to kernel
> all I will need to do is change the test again to add another mark type
> to  fanotify_mark_types array.

I guess that either would be fine. In the end someone has to look
closely at failing tests anyway to say what exactly happened.

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz