[PATCH] xlat: update ST_NOSYMFOLLOW constant
3563deb6753 at gmail.com
Sat Mar 27 04:16:11 UTC 2021
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 03:52:23AM +0300, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> Since the change itself is trivial, I'll be extra picky about details
> so you could get a taste of patch review process.
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 09:26:33PM -0700, Deborah Brouwer wrote:
> > Linux 5.10 introduced new constant ST_NOSYMFOLLOW.
> > Signed-off-by: Deborah Brouwer <3563deb6753 at gmail.com>
> As we try to be more specific nowadays, we usually mention the Linux
> kernel commit introduced the new constant, see e.g. strace commit
> We also try to list user visible changes in the NEWS file, see e.g.
> the same commit.
> Sometimes we also update tests to check printing of new constants, but
> that is not mandatory.
> The first line of the commit message says "xlat: update ST_NOSYMFOLLOW
> constant" which is a bit misleading because the change doesn't update
> ST_NOSYMFOLLOW constant.
> > ---
> > src/xlat/statfs_flags.in | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > diff --git a/src/xlat/statfs_flags.in b/src/xlat/statfs_flags.in
> > index f791a60e..90a06138 100644
> > --- a/src/xlat/statfs_flags.in
> > +++ b/src/xlat/statfs_flags.in
> > @@ -8,3 +8,4 @@ ST_MANDLOCK 0x0040
> > ST_NOATIME 0x0400
> > ST_NODIRATIME 0x0800
> > ST_RELATIME 0x1000
> > +ST_NOSYMFOLLOW 0x2000
> This part is fine.
Thank you I will submit v2 of the patch to address all the issues that you mention.
I would like to also write a test, but I am not quite sure how to approach it.
Am I correct that the statfs tests are in tests/xstatfsx.c but that the mount flags
are not explicitly tested? Could the flags be tested by making some additional calls
to print_statfs with bogus filesystems mounted in different ways as in tests/mount.c?
Finally, would you prefer that I send the patch with the new constant separately
from any test patch?
More information about the Strace-devel