Re: [LTP] [PATCH 2/2] ustat0{1, 2}: Mark failure on Btrfs with known-fail tag

[Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>]

Hi!
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ustat/ustat01.c
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ustat/ustat01.c
> @@ -44,6 +44,10 @@ static void setup(void)
>  static struct tst_test test = {
>  	.test_all = run,
>  	.setup = setup,
> +	.tags = (const struct tst_tag[]) {
> +		{"known-fail", "ustat() is known to fail with EINVAL on Btrfs"},
                                   ^
				   Maybe we should just remove the
				   "known to fail" from these messages.

Since the code in the library will print:

---
You _MAY_ be hit by known kernel failures:

ustat() is known to fail with EINVAL on Btrfs
---

so the 'known to fail' part is redundant here.

What about:

---
You _MAY_ be hit by known kernel failures:

ustat() fails with EINVAL on Btrfs
---

Other than this I think that this is a good way how to put these kind of
hints into the testcases.


Also I do wonder if there is a good URL that would contain more verbose
description of the problem but I guess there isn't. Well maybe this one:

https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org/msg95697.html

Not sure how to encode that, maybe just add it to the test top level
comment?

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp