On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 07:30:37PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 06:38:49PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > > > Sure. How about simply including _require_scratch into the function? > > Nope, that won't work, since we need _require_scratch_nocheck for one > of the tests. > > OK, here's V3 of the patch. WDYT? > > - Ted > commit b9d9da8b901acc5b6cb5da7149b7e8ce986e436e > Author: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> > Date: Sat Nov 11 23:28:51 2017 -0500 > > common: rework _require_ext4_mkfs_feature > > In all of the places where we need check to see if mkfs.ext4 can > support a set of file system features, we also should be checking to > see if the kernel can support those file system features. So rename > _require_ext4_mkfs_feature to _require_ext4_feature, and actually > format the file system in $SCRATCH. To avoid running mkfs twice in > most tests, we will teach the tests to assume that > _require_ext4_feature actually leaves $SCRATCH formatted with a file > system with those features. I have to say I still don't like the idea of relying on a _require rule to do the actual mkfs work, I'd rather run mkfs twice. That way we keep consistent semantics and usages of all _require rules across fstests (we already have several other rules do so, like _require_scratch_xfs_crc), and give people least surprise when reading tests calling such rules. And we can always create a small filesystem by default, say 512m, in _require_scratch_ext4_feature to reduce the mkfs time and mitigate the downside of mkfs twice. > > Also allow ext4/306 to run on systems where mke2fs doesn't support the > "64bit" option. This part looks good to me. 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
