| Message ID | 20181008154620.25237-1-rafael.tinoco@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | syscalls/fsetxattr02.c: Fix missing ramdisk module error | expand |
Hi!
> +#define DRVRAMDISK "brd"
I find it a bit silly to define a macro for a string that is used
exactly once. Why can't we just write "brd", in the needed_drivers?
On 10/9/18 11:17 AM, Cyril Hrubis wrote: > Hi! >> +#define DRVRAMDISK "brd" > > I find it a bit silly to define a macro for a string that is used > exactly once. Why can't we just write "brd", in the needed_drivers? I got it from from an existing test Cyril. I confess I thought the same =), was afraid of being an etiquette or something. Feel free to drop it, no hard feelings!
Hi! > > I find it a bit silly to define a macro for a string that is used > > exactly once. Why can't we just write "brd", in the needed_drivers? > > I got it from from an existing test Cyril. I confess I thought the same > =), was afraid of being an etiquette or something. Feel free to drop it, > no hard feelings! There is still a lot of silly code in LTP, just send a patch if you see some :-).
Hi! I got rid of the macro and pushed, thanks.
diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fsetxattr/fsetxattr02.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fsetxattr/fsetxattr02.c index b0d4a84fb..89279c384 100644 --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fsetxattr/fsetxattr02.c +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fsetxattr/fsetxattr02.c @@ -58,6 +58,8 @@ #define BLK MNTPOINT"/fsetxattr02blk" #define SOCK "fsetxattr02sock" +#define DRVRAMDISK "brd" + struct test_case { char *fname; int fd; @@ -241,6 +243,11 @@ static void cleanup(void) } } +static const char *const needed_drivers[] = { + DRVRAMDISK, + NULL, +}; + static struct tst_test test = { .setup = setup, .test = verify_fsetxattr, @@ -249,6 +256,7 @@ static struct tst_test test = { .needs_devfs = 1, .mntpoint = MNTPOINT, .needs_root = 1, + .needs_drivers = needed_drivers, }; #else /* HAVE_SYS_XATTR_H */
This test depends on CONFIG_BLK_DEV_RAM kernel config option. If not, then errors like: safe_macros.c:225: BROK: fsetxattr02.c:214: open(mntpoint/fsetxattr02blk,0,00) failed: ENXIO safe_macros.c:225: BROK: fgetxattr02.c:244: open(fgetxattr02blk,0,00) failed: ENXIO might happen. By using recent "needs_drivers" option we are able to mitigate this. Link: https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4011 Signed-off-by: Rafael David Tinoco <rafael.tinoco@linaro.org> --- testcases/kernel/syscalls/fsetxattr/fsetxattr02.c | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)