Re: [PATCH] xfstests: add specific test for default ACL inheritance

[Filipe David Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 10/16/13 9:04 AM, Filipe David Borba Manana wrote:
>> This test is motivated by an issue found by a btrfs user, addressed
>> and described by the following GNU/Linux kernel patch:
>>
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/3046931/
>
> Hi Filipe, thanks for the patch.
>
> Usually we don't want to add new, possibly-failing cases to old tests;
> that makes it harder to identify when the code regressed vs. when
> the test changed to test new things.
>
> It would be better to just copy the framework of tests/shared/051
> to a new test in shared/ and test only this new inheritance
> problem.

Ok, I wasn't aware of that logic, which makes sense.

>
> Also, I'm confused about this hunk:
>
>> @@ -345,7 +345,12 @@ chacl $acl2 largeaclfile
>>  getfacl --numeric largeaclfile | _filter_aces
>>
>>  echo "1 above xfs acl max"
>> -chacl $acl3 largeaclfile
>> +if [ "$FSTYP" != "btrfs" ]; then
>> +     chacl $acl3 largeaclfile
>> +else
>> +     echo 'chacl: cannot set access acl on "largeaclfile": Invalid argument'
>> +fi
>> +
>>  getfacl --numeric largeaclfile | _filter_aces
>>
>>  echo "use 16 aces"
>
> What's that about?

That chacl command succeeds on btrfs, which makes the test fail. Seems
to rely on some xfs specific limit.
By moving this test into a new file, that hack is no longer needed.

Thanks Eric.

>
> Thanks,
> -Eric
>



-- 
Filipe David Manana,

"Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world.
 Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves.
 That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men."