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 3177FC27C52 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2024 08:04:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id A44B33D0977 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2024 10:04:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from in-2.smtp.seeweb.it (in-2.smtp.seeweb.it [IPv6:2001:4b78:1:20::2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C62A3CFFBF for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2024 10:04:19 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: in-2.smtp.seeweb.it; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=suse.cz (client-ip=2a07:de40:b251:101:10:150:64:1; helo=smtp-out1.suse.de; envelope-from=chrubis@suse.cz; receiver=lists.linux.it) Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [IPv6:2a07:de40:b251:101:10:150:64:1]) (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 E347460B2C2 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2024 10:03:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org [IPv6:2a07:de40:b281:104:10:150:64:97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42A0F21A0A; Wed, 5 Jun 2024 08:03:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp-out1.suse.de; none Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D50113A24; Wed, 5 Jun 2024 08:03:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id AY/JCdgbYGbXLgAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Wed, 05 Jun 2024 08:03:36 +0000 Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 10:04:57 +0200 From: Cyril Hrubis To: Petr Vorel Message-ID: References: <20240604-unlink09-v1-1-dfd8e3e1cb2b@suse.com> <20240605065755.GB348321@pevik> <20240605073806.GA355314@pevik> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240605073806.GA355314@pevik> X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 50.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 42A0F21A0A X-Rspamd-Server: rspamd2.dmz-prg2.suse.org X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-Rspamd-Action: no action X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.3 at in-2.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] Fix unlink09 test 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: , Cc: Sebastian Chlad , ltp@lists.linux.it Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" Hi! > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/ltp/patch/20240603124653.31967-1-akumar@suse.de/ > > OK, I got hint from Andrea, that this is inspired by statx04.c:86, which is > filtering vfat and exfat. Here the problem was on system which has tmpfs, but > just more strict default setup (likely umask). Therefore I still think that > approach from Avinesh is correct. > > BTW shouldn't this test use .all_filesystems = 1 ? Or is it unlink() really VFS > only code? I see some specific functions in fs/*/, e.g. btrfs_unlink() or > ext4_unlink(), which are used for struct inode_operations unlink member. > Then, obviously also Andrea's check would be needed (otherwise is unlikely that > somebody would have TMPDIR on vfat or exfat). I would say that exfat or vfat is not uncommon in android world so I would expect that actually having LTP TMPDIR on exfat is not as unlikely as you may think. -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp