On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Eryu Guan <eguan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 06:12:37PM +0200, Jan Tulak wrote: >> + >> +# Skip if we are running an older binary without the stricter input checks. >> +# Make multiple checks to be sure that there is no regression on the one >> +# selected feature check, which would skew the result. >> +$MKFS_XFS_PROG -f -N -s size=2s $SCRATCH_DEV >/dev/null 2>&1 >> +sum=$? >> +$MKFS_XFS_PROG -f -N -l version=2,su=$((256 * 1024 + 4096)) $SCRATCH_DEV >/dev/null 2>&1 >> +sum=`expr $sum + $?` >> + >> +if [ "$sum" -eq 0 ]; then >> + _notrun "Requires newer mkfs with stricter input checks." >> +fi > > I think this can be put into a new _require rule in common/rc, as Dave > suggested in his previous review: > > " > ... a "_require_xfs_mkfs_validation" rule should be > written to determine the version of mkfs being. e.g. by testing one > of the failure cases that the unfixed binary says is ok. > " > Mmm, I would say that there is a question whether any other test will ever need it (and its author remember that there is such function), but all right. You are two now, who says this, so I will go along. And I think I will put everything into one patchset, because extended names fixes has to be applied first for _notrun to work correctly, then the common/rc functions (I'm making two - one for the new and one for the old behaviour) and at last can come this and the xfs/096 test. -- Jan Tulak jtulak@xxxxxxxxxx / jan@xxxxxxxx -- 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
