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 E65B3C3064D for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2024 13:26:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B0F63D3ED1 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2024 15:26:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from in-3.smtp.seeweb.it (in-3.smtp.seeweb.it [217.194.8.3]) (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 84E7D3D0F60 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2024 15:26:31 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: in-3.smtp.seeweb.it; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=suse.cz (client-ip=195.135.223.130; helo=smtp-out1.suse.de; envelope-from=chrubis@suse.cz; receiver=lists.linux.it) Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.223.130]) (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-3.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D08011A0099C for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2024 15:26:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (unknown [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 28A6A21896; Tue, 2 Jul 2024 13:26:28 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1719926789; h=from:from: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=P0WWXjKgTq989dUknXKvRTbG4/2YvTkav0cijp1V1iQ=; b=kEWujKk1qIhMrPDXlq8qH4LYbClyKGs17shFlFvQD4nSW86WIxcx+4rqc5D1igv2brWCJ3 mA6C+tJWDwGW0U1U7wq6JF8ttYmVBb04YZ7sEao021YulFMuTHO+5QzvjLtKxCDBCRYMK2 T4TcghL7aiANK2yFZ5KLi4tJf6QLVbA= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1719926789; h=from:from: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=P0WWXjKgTq989dUknXKvRTbG4/2YvTkav0cijp1V1iQ=; b=5aCAqOZCdXBhgh6MeOOa2ZkdtXNGJTigXSon4D1Bq5N7rdPXqMD/z+2/Enj8kGgD9w1/ej bPuV0ZADkTcZIPDw== Authentication-Results: smtp-out1.suse.de; none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1719926788; h=from:from: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=P0WWXjKgTq989dUknXKvRTbG4/2YvTkav0cijp1V1iQ=; b=qHep0jAKS48udpkJxMgj+81Z/+Isilf+BI8IXucuLAtl/EzR7yH874u3On+enhQeEQWTZX 4usSA/0i1lpdniIbrhT2LxQ4vffF+eisyHojryI8jKx7rRofYGMUc3DgjR9UniQ+Vj+f2R R9dwN7P0OkC210vdX+SZ/2asIwPFifY= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1719926788; h=from:from: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=P0WWXjKgTq989dUknXKvRTbG4/2YvTkav0cijp1V1iQ=; b=DOpY06xRBPTlMEvcNzIL2q7+iJVIdOPSI36/++jbz3RHiQ+IhcHvwYJ/9jSRRRvhqYbag8 kUgk1lWLkBOvAnAw== 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 1A9011395F; Tue, 2 Jul 2024 13:26:28 +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 ZzrGBQQAhGbHfgAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Tue, 02 Jul 2024 13:26:28 +0000 Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 15:26:19 +0200 From: Cyril Hrubis To: Andrea Cervesato Message-ID: References: <20240417144409.11411-1-andrea.cervesato@suse.de> <9b70179d-2bfa-47e3-8ae3-5cbb971bd5c3@suse.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9b70179d-2bfa-47e3-8ae3-5cbb971bd5c3@suse.com> X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.80 / 50.00]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[99.99%]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; URIBL_BLOCKED(0.00)[imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org:helo,suse.cz:email]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; DBL_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org:helo,suse.cz:email] X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.3 at in-3.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH v5] Add stat04 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: 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! > This test is basically a clone of the lstat03 test. I'm wondering if it > makes sense to have both, when we already have that one. You are stil missing the point of this test, the end result we expect is different for stat() and lstat(). The point I'm trying to make is that we should: 1. Make sure that as many attributes are diffent for the symlink and the symlink target for *both* stat() and lstat() tests, since if they are not made different the test does results are not conclusive at all 2. For stat() you should get same result on the file and symlink since stat actually follows the symlink then gets the data 3. For lstat() you should get different result on the file and symlink since lstat() *does not* follow the symlink before it gets the data -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp