on 2022/4/7 20:55, Christian Brauner wrote: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 08:09:30PM +0800, Yang Xu wrote: >> Since we plan to increase setgid test covertage, it will find new bug >> , so add a new test group test-setgid is better. >> >> Also add a new test case to test test-setgid instead of miss it. >> >> Signed-off-by: Yang Xu<xuyang2018.jy@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> src/idmapped-mounts/idmapped-mounts.c | 19 +++++++++++++++---- >> tests/generic/999 | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> tests/generic/999.out | 2 ++ > > I actually didn't mean to split out the existing setgid tests. I mean > adding new ones for the test-cases you're adding. But how you did it > works for me too and is a bit nicer. I don't have a strong opinion so as > long as Dave and Darrick are fine with it then this seems good to me. Ok, let's listen .. > > One note about the test name/numbering though. It seems you haven't > added the test using the provided xfstest infrastructure to do that. > Instead of manually adding the test you should run the "new" script. > > You should run: > > ~/src/git/xfstests$ ./new generic > > Next test id is 678 > Append a name to the ID? Test name will be 678-$name. y,[n]: > Creating test file '678' > Add to group(s) [auto] (separate by space, ? for list): auto quick attr idmapped mount perms > Creating skeletal script for you to edit ... > > that'll automatically figure out the correct test number etc. Thanks, TBH, I don't know this usage. I don't name to 678 because fstests patchwork has others new case(in reviewing), so I add a biger number. Best Regards Yang Xu
