On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 09:31:06AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 07:17:50AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:21:49AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 09:14:43AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > > > +# real QA test starts here > > > > +_supported_fs xfs > > > > +_supported_os Linux > > > > + > > > > +_require_scratch > > > > +_require_freeze > > > > + > > > > +if [ ! -e /sys/fs/xfs ] > > > > +then > > > > + _notrun "no kernel support for XFS sysfs attributes" > > > > +fi > > > > > > _requires_xfs_sysfs > > > > > > > I was mulling this over as I think we'll probably end up in a situation > > where a test that depends on sysfs bits will need to check for a > > specific attribute file. E.g., some new test comes along using a new > > attribute file. Checking for /sys/fs/xfs is not sufficient for that test > > once we release a version that so far only exports the log bits. > > > > I think we could handle that by supporting a parameter to > > _requires_xfs_sysfs that specifies the sub-attribute that must exist > > (similar to what we have for xfs_io commands). We don't need that at the > > moment, but that's good enough for me to create the requires func. > > Yup, passing the name and/or sub-path of the paramter set required > sounds fine to me. it would become: > > _requires_xfs_sysfs log > > in this case, because the presence of the /sys/fs/xfs/<dev>/log > directory would be suficinet to indicate the test should run, yes? > Yep, that works. Should any new log attributes come along as a test dependency, something like the following would be required: _requires_xfs_sysfs log/logattr So _requires_xfs_sysfs can basically just test for the existence of the parameter under the xfs/<dev> path for TEST_DEV. I'll go with that. Thanks. Brian > Cheers, > > Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
