Hi Chuck,
> Hi Amir-
> > On Mar 20, 2024, at 2:57 AM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Please follow up in adjusting the LTP test fanotify09 to update this
> > comment with the appropriate 5.15.y version:
> > * Test cases #6-#7 are regression tests for commit:
> > * (from v5.19, unlikely to be backported thus not in .tags):
> > *
> > * e730558adffb fanotify: consistent behavior for parent not
> > watching children
> > As well as this hackish test condition:
> > if (tc->ignore && tst_kvercmp(5, 19, 0) < 0) {
> > tst_res(TCONF, "ignored mask on parent dir has undefined "
> > "behavior on kernel < 5.19");
> > return;
> > }
> I'm not sure how this check should be altered.
> The fix in question now appears in both 5.10.220 and
> 5.15.154. Which means the commit is in, for instance,
> 5.10.222 and 5.15.160, but not in 5.13.0 or 5.17.0.
Thank you for noticing that. The comment on the test patch [1] was:
* Test cases #6-#7 are regression tests for commit:
* (from v5.19, unlikely to be backported thus not in .tags):
I see in the end it got backported. Now we have to decide whether it's important
enough that we should put commit in the tag and run it unconditionally
(preferred way for fixes) or from the latest stable kernel version which got the
backport.
AFAIK LTP should not try to hide bugs, report missing fix. And it's up to
testers and the projects if they consider the problem as WONTFIX or the kernel
they test will backport the fix.
Kind regards,
Petr
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/ltp/20220620132737.2015073-5-amir73il@xxxxxxxxx/
