On 5/28/16 11:42 AM, Zorro Lang wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 01:27:56PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 5/27/16 1:05 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>
>>> So maybe something like this (not tested)
>>>
>>> + /* Test for the existence of a sysfs entry at /sys/fs/$FSTYP/$DEV/$ENTRY */
>>> +_require_fs_sys_fs()
>>> +{
>>> + local dev=$1
>>> + local target=$2
>>> + local dname=""
>>> + local tmp_mnt=`mktemp -d`
>>> +
>>> + if [ ! -b "$dev" -o -z "$target" ];then
>>> + echo "Usage: _require_fs_sys_fs <device> <sysfs_path>"
>>> + exit 1
>>> + fi
>>> +
>>> + dname=$(basename $(readlink -f $dev))
>>> + _mount -t $FSTYP `_common_dev_mount_options` $dev $tmp_mnt
>>> + if [ ! -e /sys/fs/${FSTYP}/${dname}/$target ];then
>>> + umount $tmp_mnt
>>> + rm -f $tmp_mnt
>>> + _notrun "/sys/fs/${FSTYP}/${dname}/$target: No such file or directory"
>>> + fi
>>> + umount $SCRATCH_MNT
>>> + rm -f $tmp_mnt
>>> +}
>>>
>>> and it would work for either SCRATCH or TEST?
>>
>> I guess nothing guarantees that the device is already mkfs'd, at least
>> for scratch, so maybe it also needs to catch a mount failure,
>> with a message about "could not mount; mkfs first in your test?"
>> or something like that.
>
> Yes, if we don't mkfs in _require_fs_sys_fs(), that means we need the
> caller make sure they do that. I will check the mount error likes:
>
> _mount -t $FSTYP `_common_dev_mount_options` $dev $tmp_mnt
> if [ $? -ne 0 ];then
> rm -f $tmp_mnt
> _notrun "could not mount; mkfs first in your test?"
> elif [ ! -e /sys/fs/${FSTYP}/${dname}/$target ];then
> ....
> fi
Yes, I think this is better. Any test using scratch should mkfs it
anyway, and this way the test will not have to perform mkfs twice -
once for the _require, and again for the test.
Thanks,
-Eric
> Thanks,
> Zorro
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
