From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cyril Hrubis Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2020 09:55:06 +0200 Subject: [LTP] [PATCH v1 03/10] syscalls/ioctl_loop01: Add LO_FLAGS_AUTOCLEAR and LO_FLAGS_PARTSCAN test In-Reply-To: <07295721-7256-d6f1-872e-e29de2ecea4f@cn.fujitsu.com> References: <1585839990-19923-1-git-send-email-xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com> <1585839990-19923-4-git-send-email-xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com> <20200403115502.GC26355@yuki.lan> <16dd8088-e485-8e7b-8e99-2b755e889041@163.com> <07295721-7256-d6f1-872e-e29de2ecea4f@cn.fujitsu.com> Message-ID: <20200409075506.GA2828@yuki.lan> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it Hi! > >> I wonder if we can avoid dependency on parted by having a look at the > >> changes in the image after the call to parted and writing a few bytes > >> ourselves instead. > > I will see kernel code to figure out this, if no other good way, we can > > split this check into a new single test. it can make this case less > > couping. > Sorry for misunderstanding,. I prefer to add a parted test.img(10K is > ok on my environment) into ltp or add a flag to skip this > check(/dev/loop0p1) when parted command is not available. What do you > think about the two ways? I it couldn't be easily done without parted then it's fine if the test depends on it. -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz