On Wed 03-04-24 22:12:45, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 01:27:24PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote: > > There's a bunch of flags that are purely based on what the file > > operations support while also never being conditionally set or unset. > > IOW, they're not subject to change for individual files. Imho, such > > flags don't need to live in f_mode they might as well live in the fops > > structs itself. And the fops struct already has that lonely > > mmap_supported_flags member. We might as well turn that into a generic > > fop_flags member and move a few flags from FMODE_* space into FOP_* > > space. That gets us four FMODE_* bits back and the ability for new > > static flags that are about file ops to not have to live in FMODE_* > > space but in their own FOP_* space. It's not the most beautiful thing > > ever but it gets the job done. Yes, there'll be an additional pointer > > chase but hopefully that won't matter for these flags. > > For the past couple of days several LTP tests (open_by_handle_at0[12] > and name_to_handle_at01) have been failing on all the arm64 platforms > we're running these tests on. I ran a bisect which came back to this Do you have some LTP logs / kernel logs available for the failing runs? Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR
