[LTP] [PATCH] containers/netns/netns_sysfs.sh: add kernel version check

[Guangwen Feng <fenggw-fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>]

Hi!

On 10/27/2016 02:17 AM, Jiri Jaburek wrote:
> On 08/30/16 10:01, Guangwen Feng wrote:
>> Sysfs is not mount namespace aware until applying following kernel
>> patches in mainline kernel v2.6.35:
>>
>> a1b3f59 net: Expose all network devices in a namespaces in sysfs
>> 417daa1 hotplug: netns aware uevent_helper
>> d6523dd net/sysfs: Fix the bitrot in network device kobject namespace support
>> 608b4b9 netns: Teach network device kobjects which namespace they are in
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Guangwen Feng <fenggw-fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
>> Tested-by: Matus Marhefka <mmarhefk@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>  testcases/kernel/containers/netns/netns_sysfs.sh | 5 +++++
>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/containers/netns/netns_sysfs.sh b/testcases/kernel/containers/netns/netns_sysfs.sh
>> index 290cef8..b3a87ed 100644
>> --- a/testcases/kernel/containers/netns/netns_sysfs.sh
>> +++ b/testcases/kernel/containers/netns/netns_sysfs.sh
>> @@ -29,6 +29,11 @@ DUMMYDEV_HOST="dummy_test0"
>>  DUMMYDEV="dummy_test1"
>>  . test.sh
>>  
>> +tst_kvercmp 2 6 35
>> +if [ $? -eq 0 ]; then
> 
> Just out of curiosity - I see this used on more places, but can't
> understand why would you use this instead of simply
> 
>   if tst_kvercmp 2 6 35; then

Sure, this is simpler.
Thanks for reminding.

> 
> Any reason behind that? Am I missing a test writing rule?

There is no reason to me, I am just used to this.
Sorry, I am not sure whether there is a test writing rule about it either.

Best Regards,
Guangwen Feng

> 
> Thanks.
> 
>> +	tst_brkm TCONF "sysfs is not mount namespace aware for kernels older than 2.6.35"
>> +fi
>> +
>>  setns_check
>>  if [ $? -eq 32 ]; then
>>  	tst_brkm TCONF "setns not supported"
>>