On Sun, Jun 23, 2024 at 02:10:34PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Instead of limiting this test to a few file systems, opt out the
> file systems supported in common/rc that don't support overwrite
> checking at all, and those like extN that support it, but only when
> run interactively.
If script(1) is installed, can we use it to run mkfs.extX in a sub-pty?
Or is that not worth the trouble?
(This is really more of a question for Ted...)
--D
> Also remove support for really old mkfs.btrfs versions that lack
> the overwrite check.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
> ---
> tests/generic/740 | 15 ++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tests/generic/740 b/tests/generic/740
> index bac927227..903e891db 100755
> --- a/tests/generic/740
> +++ b/tests/generic/740
> @@ -12,19 +12,16 @@ _begin_fstest mkfs auto quick
> # Import common functions.
> . ./common/filter
>
> -# real QA test starts here
> -_supported_fs xfs btrfs
> +# a bunch of file systems don't support foreign fs detection
> +# ext* do support it, but disable the feature when called non-interactively
> +_supported_fs ^ext2 ^ext3 ^ext4 ^jfs ^ocfs2 ^udf
>
> -_require_scratch_nocheck
> -_require_no_large_scratch_dev
> +_require_block_device "${SCRATCH_DEV}"
> # not all the FS support zoned block device
> _require_non_zoned_device "${SCRATCH_DEV}"
>
> -# mkfs.btrfs did not have overwrite detection at first
> -if [ "$FSTYP" == "btrfs" ]; then
> - grep -q 'force overwrite' `echo $MKFS_BTRFS_PROG | awk '{print $1}'` || \
> - _notrun "Installed mkfs.btrfs does not support -f option"
> -fi
> +_require_scratch_nocheck
> +_require_no_large_scratch_dev
>
> echo "Silence is golden."
> for fs in `echo ${MKFS_PROG}.* | sed -e "s:${MKFS_PROG}.::g"`
> --
> 2.43.0
>
>
