Re: [LTP] [PATCH v3] ioctl_loop01.c: Use proper device for partitioning

[Wei Gao via ltp <ltp@lists.linux.it>]

On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 05:35:15PM +0200, Cyril Hrubis wrote:
> Hi!
> > > > The test should have needs_cmds set to parted (we do that properly in
> > > > ioctl09.c) then we do not have to handle the 255 exit code here since
> > > > the test would be skipped if it's missing.
> > 
> > > If we use needs_cmds all the check will be skipped in this case.
> > 
> > @Cyril: only single test require 'parted' as I reported in v1 [1].
> > Yeah, code gets slightly more complicated just because single test requires
> > parted. Or you would not care? IMHO it does not make sense to split test into
> > two (too much duplicity).
> 
> The problem here is how to handle the metadata. One posible solution is
> to add a notion of optional dependencies so that we would have
> 'needs_foo' and 'wants_foo'. Or turn the needs_foo into a structure with
> an .optional boolean flag.

What's difference between needs_foo and wants_foo? wants_foo means we do
not do brk if not exist foo?
I guess we need wants_parted support for .needs_cmds like following
change? Could you give me more guidance

--- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ioctl/ioctl_loop01.c
+++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ioctl/ioctl_loop01.c
@@ -147,6 +147,10 @@ static struct tst_test test = {
                "loop",
                NULL
        },
+       .needs_cmds= (const char *const []) {
+               "wants_parted",
+               NULL
+       },


> 
> > But TINFO message should be turned in TCONF so that people notice.
> > tst_res(TINFO, "Current environment doesn't have parted disk, skip it");
> 
> Yes please.
> 
> -- 
> Cyril Hrubis
> chrubis@suse.cz

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