[PATCH] xlat: update ST_NOSYMFOLLOW constant

[deborah brouwer]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 03:52:23AM +0300, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 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
> v5.11~31.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> -- 
> ldv
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?

Deb