> This ad-hoc approach to testing syscalls is probably not the best idea. > Have the LTP considered a more thorough approach where we have a central > iterator that returns a file descriptor of various types (the ones listed > above, plus block devices, and regular files), and individual syscall > testcases can express whether this syscall should pass/fail for each type > of fd? That would give us one central place to add new fd types, and we > wouldn't be relying on syzbot to try fds at random until something fails. > > Or something. I'm not an expert on the LTP or testing in general; it > just feels like we could do better here. I honestly would love to see such tests all go into xfstests. IOW, general VFS and fs-specific tests should be in one location. That's why I added src/vfs/ under xfstests. Having to run multiple test-suites for one subsystem isn't ideal. I mean, I'm doing it but I don't love it...
