On Fri, Sep 05, 2025 at 05:14:47PM +0100, John Garry wrote:
> On 05/09/2025 16:51, Ojaswin Mujoo wrote:
> > > This requires the user to know the version which corresponds to the feature.
> > > Is that how things are done for other such utilities and their versions vs
> > > features?
> > Hi John,
> >
> > So there are not many such helpers but the 2 I could see were used this
> > way:
> >
> > tests/btrfs/284:
> > _require_btrfs_send_version 2
> >
> > tests/nfs/001:
> > _require_test_nfs_version 4
> >
> > So I though of keeping it this way.
>
> What about the example of _require_xfs_io_command param, which checks if
> $param is supported?
>
> We could have _require_fio_option atomics, which checks if a specific
> version is available which supports atomic? Or a more straightforward would
> be _require_fio_with_atomics.
Hey John,
Sure Im okay with having a high level helper. I liked the name you
previously suggested:
_require_fio_atomic_writes() {
_require_fio_version 3.38+
}
And the tests could use it as:
_require_fio_atomic_writes()
fio_config="abc.fio"
_require_fio $fio_config
------------------------
OR would you prefer:
_require_fio_atomic_writes() {
_require_fio_version 3.38+
_require_fio $fio_config
}
And the tests could use it as:
fio_config="abc.fio"
_require_fio_atomic_writes $fio_config
------------------------
Let me know which one would you prefer.
Regards,
ojaswin
>
> Cheers
>
