On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 12:00:37AM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote: > On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 02:56:04PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > > > +# Always test FSV_BLOCK_SIZE. Also test some other block sizes if they happen > > > +# to be supported. > > > +_fsv_scratch_begin_subtest "Testing FS_IOC_READ_VERITY_METADATA with block_size=FSV_BLOCK_SIZE" > > > +test_block_size $FSV_BLOCK_SIZE > > > +for block_size in 1024 4096 16384 65536; do > > > + _fsv_scratch_begin_subtest "Testing FS_IOC_READ_VERITY_METADATA with block_size=$block_size" > > > + if (( block_size == FSV_BLOCK_SIZE )); then > > > + continue > > > + fi > > > + if ! _fsv_can_enable $fsv_file --block-size=$block_size; then > > > + echo "block_size=$block_size is unsupported" >> $seqres.full > > > + continue > > > > If a block size isn't supported, e.g. 1024. Then this case trys to skip that > > test, but it'll break golden image, due to the .out file contains each line > > of: > > Testing FS_IOC_READ_VERITY_METADATA with block_size=1024/4096/16384/65536 > > > > Do you expect that failure, or we shouldn't fail on that? > > Actually it doesn't fail, since "Testing FS_IOC_READ_VERITY_METADATA with > block_size=$block_size" is printed unconditionally, and > "block_size=$block_size is unsupported" is only printed to $seqres.full. Oh, you're right. > > To avoid this confusion, how about I change "Testing FS_IOC_READ_VERITY_METADATA > with block_size=$block_size" to "Testing block_size=$block_size if supported"? > Or do you have another suggestion? That's fine, I think current "output" is good to me. If there's not objection from linux-fscrypt@, I'll merge this patchset. Thanks for this update. Thanks, Zorro > > - Eric >
|