On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 09:06:50AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:23:51AM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > > 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. > > Sounds good. Hi Dave, My v4 patches simply rename the helper to this "_exclude_scratch_mount_option", no function change. Then I take your reviews as a "Reviewed-by" tag based on "I think this is fine, except for the name." and the above "Sounds good.". So I can queue them for next pull request and start release testing, and don't have to bother you providing an explicit reviewed-by. Please let me know if you have different thoughts. 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
