On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 06:42:12PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> 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...
Um, I remember that discussion but I can't remember what the obstacles
were in the end. Trying to find that thread....
--b.
