On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 4:45 PM Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Signed-off-by: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl33.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl33.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl33.c
> index 43dc5a2af..627823c5c 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl33.c
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl33.c
> @@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ static void do_test(unsigned int i)
> if (TST_RET == -1) {
> if (type == TST_OVERLAYFS_MAGIC && TST_ERR == EAGAIN) {
> tst_res(TINFO | TTERRNO,
> - "fcntl(F_SETLEASE, F_WRLCK) failed on overlapfs as expected");
> + "fcntl(F_SETLEASE, F_WRLCK) failed on overlayfs as expected");
You have 3 more of this typo in fcntl tests.
If you ask me, silencing this error seems wrong.
While the error is *expected* it is still a broken interface.
It may be just a matter of terminology, but I am reading this message as:
TEST PASSED: Overlayfs failed as expected
While it really should be more along the lines of:
TEST SKIPPED: Overlayfs doesn't support write leased
Besides, this problem looks quite easy to fix.
I think Bruce was already looking at changing the implementation of
check_conflicting_open(), so if the test is not failing, nobody is going to
nudge for a fix...
Thanks,
Amir.
