xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] common: use a relative path to fsstress

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] common: use a relative path to fsstress
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 00:53:52 -0700
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20140504214913.GP26353@dastard>
References: <20140504104510.GA9510@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20140504214913.GP26353@dastard>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 07:49:13AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
> > 
> > --- a/common/config
> > +++ b/common/config
> > @@ -134,7 +134,7 @@ export MOUNT_PROG="`set_prog_path mount`"
> >  export UMOUNT_PROG="`set_prog_path umount`"
> >  [ "$UMOUNT_PROG" = "" ] && _fatal "umount not found"
> >  
> > -export FSSTRESS_PROG="`set_prog_path fsstress $PWD/ltp/fsstress`"
> > +export FSSTRESS_PROG="./ltp/fsstress"
> 
> Why remove the set_prog_path call? i.e. this should work:
> 
> +export FSSTRESS_PROG="`set_prog_path fsstress ./ltp/fsstress`"
> 
> Otherwise, a comment explaining why set_prog_path is not used just
> for this binary would be appropriate....

set_prog_path is only useful for tools found in $PATH, and except for
fsstress we never use it for anything that we specify path to, so
I don't really see the need for a comment here.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>