On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 09:42:02AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 06:40:28PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > > Some tests require that there's no certain mount option, so > > introduce a new helper _require_no_mount_opts() to do the check on > > $MOUNT_OPTIONS. > > I think this is fine, except for the name. It's more of an exclude > rule rather than a "require" rule. i.e. _exclude_mount_option() is > closer to it's purpose. This does look better to me, thanks! > > The only other question I have is that mount options can be > different between test and scratch devices - the test device mount > options can be set via TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS, as well as via > MOUNT_OPTIONS. Does this rule need to handle that? I didn't think about TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS. Currently there's no need to handle it, MOUNT_OPTIONS is sufficient I think. How about I rename it to _exclude_scratch_mount_option()? And we can always add another _exclude_test_mount_option() if needed in future. Thanks, Eryu -- 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
