Hi Amir, thanks for the review. Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Well, I would not expect a FAN_FS_ERROR event to ever have 0 error > value. Since this test practically only tests ext4, I do not think it > is reasonable > for the test to VERIFY a bug. It is fine to write this test with expectations > that are not met and let it fail. This gave me a good chuckle. :) I will check for a EXT4_ERR_EFSCORRUPTED and propose a fix on ext4. > > But a better plan would probably be to merge the patches up to 5 to test > FAN_FS_ERROR and then add more test cases after ext4 is fixed > Either that or you fix the ext4 problem along with FAN_FS_ERROR. > > Forgot to say that the test needs to declare .needs_cmds "debugfs". > > In any case, as far as prerequisite to merging FAN_FS_ERROR > your WIP tests certainly suffice. > Please keep your test branch around so we can use it to validate > the kernel patches. > I usually hold off on submitting LTP tests for inclusion until at least -rc3 > after kernel patches have been merged. As requested, I will not send a new version of the test for now. I published them on the following unstable branch: https://gitlab.collabora.com/krisman/ltp -b fan-fs-error The v1, as submitted in this thread is also available at: https://gitlab.collabora.com/krisman/ltp -b fan-fs-error-v1 Thanks, -- Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
