On 2025-08-12 01:55:41, Zorro Lang wrote: > On Fri, Aug 08, 2025 at 09:31:57PM +0200, Andrey Albershteyn wrote: > > Add a test to test basic functionality of file_getattr() and > > file_setattr() syscalls. Most of the work is done in file_attr > > utility. > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrey Albershteyn <aalbersh@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > tests/generic/2000 | 113 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > tests/generic/2000.out | 37 ++++++++++++++++ > > 2 files changed, 150 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/tests/generic/2000 b/tests/generic/2000 > > new file mode 100755 > > index 000000000000..b4410628c241 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/tests/generic/2000 > > @@ -0,0 +1,113 @@ > > +#! /bin/bash > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > +# Copyright (c) 2025 Red Hat Inc. All Rights Reserved. > > +# > > +# FS QA Test No. 2000 > > +# > > +# Test file_getattr/file_setattr syscalls > > +# > > +. ./common/preamble > > +_begin_fstest auto > > + > > +# Import common functions. > > +# . ./common/filter > > + > > +_wants_kernel_commit xxxxxxxxxxx \ > > + "fs: introduce file_getattr and file_setattr syscalls" > > As this's a new feature test, I'm wondering if we should use a _require_ > function to check if current kernel and FSTYP supports file_set/getattr > syscalls, and _notrun if it's not supported, rather than fail the test. hmm, I don't see where _require_function is defined Anyway, the _notrun makes more sense, I will look into what to check for to skip this one if it's not supported -- - Andrey
