From: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH v4] syscalls/newmount: new test case for new mount API
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 11:41:14 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200123104114.GD27845@rei> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200117110554.GG14282@dhcp-12-102.nay.redhat.com>
Hi!
> > The only thing with bothers me is is that NTFS related failure
> > on CONFIG_NTFS_FS is not set and mkfs.ntfs installed.
> > I'd prefer at least to have a warning, but but better to fix it.
> > I guess it's LTP problem, see code at safe_mount() in lib/safe_macros.c
> >
> > /*
> > * Don't try using the kernel's NTFS driver when mounting NTFS, since
> > * the kernel's NTFS driver doesn't have proper write support.
> > */
> > if (!filesystemtype || strcmp(filesystemtype, "ntfs")) {
> > rval = mount(source, target, filesystemtype, mountflags, data);
> > if (!rval)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > But obviously we don't use it as we do mount in the test, not in the library.
> > So I propose (and can implement) to add flag TST_FS_SKIP_NTFS 0x02 into include/tst_fs.h
> > and use it in test.
>
> Maybe LTP should do more check to decide a fs list will be tested, not only check
> mkfs.$FSTPE tools. For example, check:
> 1) mkfs.$FSTYPE is exist
> 2) ${FSTYPE}.ko is loaded, or can be loaded.
That obivously does not work for filesystems build into the kernel.
> Or check:
> 1) mkfs.$FSTYPE $tmpdev run passed
> 2) mount $tmpdev $tmpmnt passed
> 3) umount $tmpdev
> 4) remove $tmpdev and $tmpmnt
If you have a look at the lib/tst_supported_fs_types.c we actually do
this for filesystems implemented in the kernel. For FUSE we only check
that FUSE is enabled in the kernel and that mount.$fs_type is present,
which should be enough to tell if the filesystem is supported.
> For FUSE, I think we'd better to not test FUSE by default. Then let the case decide if
> it would like to support a FUSE fs test. Change the TST_FS_SKIP_FUSE to TST_FS_SUP_FUSE,
> if someone case wants to test a FUSE fs (likes ntfs), it should do special steps to mount
> it, or it'll test linux internal ntfs.ko.
It works fine for majority of testcases, the mount() and fsmount()
syscalls are kind of special here. I guess that all we need to do here
is to skip the fuse here.
--
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-23 10:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-01-16 7:56 [LTP] [PATCH v4] syscalls/newmount: new test case for new mount API Zorro Lang
2020-01-16 11:49 ` Cyril Hrubis
2020-01-16 15:08 ` Zorro Lang
2020-01-17 7:48 ` Petr Vorel
2020-01-17 11:05 ` Zorro Lang
2020-01-23 10:41 ` Cyril Hrubis [this message]
2020-01-23 13:15 ` Petr Vorel
2020-01-16 11:52 ` Petr Vorel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200123104114.GD27845@rei \
--to=chrubis@suse.cz \
--cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox