From: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>
To: Wei Gao <wegao@suse.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH v3] ioctl_loop01.c: Use proper device for partitioning
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 11:54:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aNO_uJvhPaZUSR1s@yuki.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aNNWzGWH56SLSXza@localhost>
Hi!
> 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
> + },
As Peter explained support for this is not in the test library yet.
My proposal was either of:
1. Add .wants_cmd key to the tst_test structure
- pros: easy to add, easy to handle
- cons: the number of tst_test structure members will eventually
double
2. Add a flag to the needs_cmd, i.e. convert needs_cmd into an array of
structures, we do that for other cases like saving and restoring
proc/sys files
- pros: we will keep the number of members of tst_test
this is easily expandable, e.g. adding support for
minimal version
- cons: all tests that have needs cmds will need to be adjusted
This would look like:
struct tst_cmd {
const char *cmd;
unsigned int required:1;
};
After thinking about this I've started to lean towards option 2.
--
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz
--
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-09-24 10:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-09-01 7:47 [LTP] [PATCH v1] ioctl_loop01.c: Use proper device for partitioning Wei Gao via ltp
2025-09-01 10:38 ` Petr Vorel
2025-09-02 2:16 ` Wei Gao via ltp
2025-09-02 3:12 ` [LTP] [PATCH v2] " Wei Gao via ltp
2025-09-02 10:44 ` Petr Vorel
2025-09-02 11:18 ` [LTP] [PATCH v3] " Wei Gao via ltp
2025-09-03 12:48 ` Petr Vorel
2025-09-09 11:50 ` Cyril Hrubis
2025-09-10 1:35 ` Wei Gao via ltp
2025-09-18 14:53 ` Petr Vorel
2025-09-18 15:35 ` Cyril Hrubis
2025-09-19 13:22 ` Petr Vorel
2025-09-22 7:28 ` Cyril Hrubis
2025-09-22 7:32 ` Petr Vorel
2025-09-24 2:26 ` Wei Gao via ltp
2025-09-24 7:03 ` Petr Vorel
2025-09-24 9:54 ` Cyril Hrubis [this message]
2025-09-24 10:40 ` Wei Gao via ltp
2025-09-24 10:54 ` Cyril Hrubis
2025-09-24 12:55 ` Petr Vorel
2025-09-24 13:17 ` Cyril Hrubis
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=aNO_uJvhPaZUSR1s@yuki.lan \
--to=chrubis@suse.cz \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
--cc=wegao@suse.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox