On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 12:44 AM Ernesto A. Fernández <ernesto.mnd.fernandez@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Running tests on hfsplus requires patched versions of the mkfs and fsck > tools [1] that support filesystems smaller than the device. That's not accurate, is it? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the patched tools are required to run the _scratch_mkfs_sized tests? > > [1] https://github.com/eafer/hfsprogs-linux.git > > Signed-off-by: Ernesto A. Fernández <ernesto.mnd.fernandez@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > common/config | 10 ++++++++++ > common/rc | 15 ++++++++++++++- > 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/common/config b/common/config > index 1ba8d96c..315f8b1e 100644 > --- a/common/config > +++ b/common/config > @@ -229,6 +229,7 @@ case "$HOSTOS" in > export MKFS_CIFS_PROG="false" > export MKFS_OVERLAY_PROG="false" > export MKFS_REISER4_PROG=$(type -P mkfs.reiser4) > + export MKFS_HFSPLUS_PROG=$(type -P mkfs.hfsplus) > export E2FSCK_PROG=$(type -P e2fsck) > export TUNE2FS_PROG=$(type -P tune2fs) > export FSCK_OVERLAY_PROG=$(type -P fsck.overlay) > @@ -313,6 +314,9 @@ _mount_opts() > ubifs) > export MOUNT_OPTIONS=$UBIFS_MOUNT_OPTIONS > ;; > + hfsplus) > + export MOUNT_OPTIONS=$HFSPLUS_MOUNT_OPTIONS > + ;; > *) > ;; > esac > @@ -380,6 +384,9 @@ _mkfs_opts() > f2fs) > export MKFS_OPTIONS="$F2FS_MKFS_OPTIONS" > ;; > + hfsplus) > + export MKFS_OPTIONS=$HFSPLUS_MKFS_OPTIONS > + ;; > *) > ;; > esac > @@ -397,6 +404,9 @@ _fsck_opts() > f2fs) > export FSCK_OPTIONS="" > ;; > + hfsplus) > + export FSCK_OPTIONS="-nX" > + ;; > *) > export FSCK_OPTIONS="-n" > ;; > diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc > index d5bb1fee..a843e9f6 100644 > --- a/common/rc > +++ b/common/rc > @@ -158,6 +158,12 @@ case "$FSTYP" in > ubifs) > [ "$UBIUPDATEVOL_PROG" = "" ] && _fatal "ubiupdatevol not found" > ;; > + hfsplus) > + [ "$MKFS_HFSPLUS_PROG" = "" ] && _fatal "mkfs.hfsplus not found" > + mkfs.hfsplus -X |& grep "invalid" && > + _fatal "A patched version of mkfs.hfsplus is required:" \ > + "https://github.com/eafer/hfsprogs-linux.git"; Why fatal and not just notrun the _scratch_mkfs_sized tests if no -X support? Must all tests run with mkfs -X and fsck -X?? > + ;; > esac > > if [ ! -z "$REPORT_LIST" ]; then > @@ -746,6 +752,10 @@ _scratch_mkfs() > mkfs_cmd="yes | $MKFS_PROG -t $FSTYP --" > mkfs_filter="grep -v -e ^mkfs\.ocfs2" > ;; > + hfsplus) > + mkfs_cmd="yes | $MKFS_PROG -t $FSTYP -- -X" -X here seems like a typo? Thanks, Amir.
