> 在 2017年12月1日，下午12:13，Eryu Guan <eguan@xxxxxxxxxx> 写道： > > On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 12:04:44PM +0800, Chengguang Xu wrote: >> Hi Eryu, >> >> Actually, in my another test case generic/470 will need to check whether fs supports syncfs or not. >> I make shared infrastructure for checking that, and because it is common component >> I post as an individual patch instead of including in the case of generic/470. > > I think "_require_xfs_io_command syncfs" should be fine, there's no need > & not encouraged to add new binary & usage like this. If you want to run > syncfs(2) to make sure the kernel actually supports it, you can add a > new 'syncfs' switch case in _require_xfs_io_command. > Failure of _require_xfs_io_command check leads to notrun, if we have several sync patterns(combination of fsync/fdatasync/syncfs/sync) in an actual test case, the case will lose downward compatibility for old kernel. In this situation, we have to split test case though they look similar. Thanks， Chengguang.-- 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
