From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2460CECAAA1 for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2022 14:47:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E4F13CAA7F for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2022 16:47:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from in-2.smtp.seeweb.it (in-2.smtp.seeweb.it [217.194.8.2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-384)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 500E83CA9F1 for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2022 16:47:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-2.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 971C3601AED for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2022 16:47:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A32AC1F8FB; Fri, 9 Sep 2022 14:47:29 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1662734849; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Vy/FI/4vNwE3RbBfNQ8s2N1Dcv7bIdX8hBjEg1y5sUs=; b=BuDgaZIK+h6m4E1sk0phFu08tCjD49xjl/uBqBDmlLVvziyZNCbKqZSGzn/KV8wUXI54Q5 RE/kW7axgEPiMKJb/f76RIRKuylK3PCrv/LPf6Bmmd7JchAeM3CKiIIujU2RuAnF2wQVLF 0nfzEjkYohZVan6uFTz/S+H5hMctETM= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1662734849; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Vy/FI/4vNwE3RbBfNQ8s2N1Dcv7bIdX8hBjEg1y5sUs=; b=VzzTlOuU/62elehHfTXlYjib/OXqmH6dRfMSewSgwvA6zFl4pJcyYy/4ElZPPhpYt/xSps 2GDA1/zowFm9kwBw== Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55A6813A93; Fri, 9 Sep 2022 14:47:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id F37uEgFSG2NLYwAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Fri, 09 Sep 2022 14:47:29 +0000 Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2022 16:47:27 +0200 From: Petr Vorel To: Martin Doucha Message-ID: References: <20220902133710.1785-1-pvorel@suse.cz> <20220902133710.1785-5-pvorel@suse.cz> <70df29e7-0097-c698-b6ba-e3f87da3893f@suse.cz> <5e01e854-7cc6-7b08-d1f8-7f0709fbc07d@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5e01e854-7cc6-7b08-d1f8-7f0709fbc07d@suse.cz> X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.4 at in-2.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH v4 4/9] tst_supported_fs: Support skip list when query single fs X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Petr Vorel Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it, Richard Palethorpe Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" > On 09. 09. 22 16:22, Petr Vorel wrote: > > OK, this is not in v5. I don't mind to send v6 on Monday, if we agree this > > is wanted. Implementation detail: should I use for -2 and -1 for these two values? > > (code < 0 would be error, code > 0 would be OK, 0 itself skipped) > One more thing, the skiplist check should be done before availability check. > It's faster and it'll save you work when you're trying to fix tests that > shouldn't be skipped. Good point. I guess you mean just to reverse order in tst_fs_is_supported_skiplist(), right? Kind regards, Petr +++ lib/tst_supported_fs_types.c @@ -137,17 +137,10 @@ enum tst_fs_impl tst_fs_is_supported(const char *fs_type) enum tst_fs_impl tst_fs_is_supported_skiplist(const char *fs_type, const char *const *skiplist) { - int ret; - - ret = tst_fs_is_supported(fs_type); - - if (!ret) - return ret; - if (tst_fs_in_skiplist(fs_type, skiplist)) return TST_FS_UNSUPPORTED; - return ret; + return tst_fs_is_supported(fs_type); } const char **tst_get_supported_fs_types(const char *const *skiplist) -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp