Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] lib: Add support for max_kver to struct tst_test and tst_fs

On 7/31/26 12:51 PM, Petr Vorel wrote:
> max_kver adds a support to require a maximal kernel version the test can
> run on. e.g. "7.2" (mainline release) or "6.1.180" (stable release).
> 
> NOTE: Mainline release is sufficient on any stable release (test with
> .min_kver = "7.1" runs also on kernel 7.1.5). Stable releases are
> compared as expected.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <[email protected]>
> ---
> Changes v2->v3:
> * Allow to pass mainline release (e.g. max_version = "7.1") on any stable
>    release (e.g. 7.1.5). Stable releases (e.g. 7.1.5) are compared as
>    expected. For this I'd like an explicit ack.
> 
>   include/tst_test.h | 13 ++++++++++++-
>   lib/tst_test.c     | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   2 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/tst_test.h b/include/tst_test.h
> index c69362485e..318b2f79b7 100644
> --- a/include/tst_test.h
> +++ b/include/tst_test.h
> @@ -280,6 +280,9 @@ struct tst_ulimit_val {
>    *
>    * @min_kver: A minimum kernel version supporting the filesystem which has been
>    *            created with mkfs.
> + *
> + * @max_kver: A maximum kernel version supporting the filesystem which has been
> + *            created with mkfs.
>    */
>   struct tst_fs {
>   	const char *type;
> @@ -292,6 +295,7 @@ struct tst_fs {
>   	const void *mnt_data;
>   
>   	const char *min_kver;
> +	const char *max_kver;
>   };
>   
>   /**
> @@ -301,7 +305,13 @@ struct tst_fs {
>    *        and each time passed an increasing counter value.
>    * @options: An NULL optstr terminated array of struct tst_option.
>    *
> - * @min_kver: A minimal kernel version the test can run on. e.g. "3.10".
> + * @min_kver: A minimal kernel version the test can run on. e.g. "4.4" (mainline
> + * release) or "6.1.180" (stable release).
> + *
> + * @max_kver: A maximal kernel version the test can run on. e.g. "7.2" (mainline
> + * release) or "6.1.180" (stable release). NOTE: Mainline release is sufficient
> + * on any stable release (test with ``min_kver = "7.1"`` runs also on kernel
> + * 7.1.5). Stable releases are compared as expected.
>    *
>    * @supported_archs: A NULL terminated array of architectures the test runs on
>    *                   e.g. {"x86_64, "x86", NULL}. Calls tst_is_on_arch() to
> @@ -551,6 +561,7 @@ struct tst_fs {
>   	struct tst_option *options;
>   
>   	const char *min_kver;
> +	const char *max_kver;
>   
>   	const char *const *supported_archs;
>   
> diff --git a/lib/tst_test.c b/lib/tst_test.c
> index 778a1fed40..8b9abe716a 100644
> --- a/lib/tst_test.c
> +++ b/lib/tst_test.c
> @@ -1087,6 +1087,44 @@ static bool check_min_kver(const char *min_kver, const int brk_nosupp)
>   	return true;
>   }
>   
> +/*
> + * Check for the maximal required kernel version.
> + *
> + * return: true if the kernel version is low enough, false otherwise.
> + */
> +static bool check_max_kver(const char *max_kver, const int brk_nosupp)
> +{
> +	char *msg;
> +	int dots, i, v1, v2, v3;
> +
> +	if (tst_parse_kver(max_kver, &v1, &v2, &v3)) {
> +		tst_res(TWARN,
> +			"Invalid kernel version %s, expected %%d.%%d.%%d",
> +			max_kver);
> +	}
> +
> +	for (i=0, dots=0; max_kver[i]; i++)
> +		dots += (max_kver[i] == '.');
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * For mainline kernel release without patch level (single dot e.g. "7.1")
> +	 * ignore v3 (the sublevel): 7.1.x is always ok.
> +	 * Do *not* ignore v3 on stable kernel release (2 dots, e.g. 7.1.5).
> +	 */
> +	if (tst_kvercmp(v1, v2, v3) > (dots == 1 ? 1023 : 0)) {
> +		msg = "The test requires kernel %s or older";
> +
> +		if (brk_nosupp)
> +			tst_brk(TCONF, msg, max_kver);
> +		else
> +			tst_res(TCONF, msg, max_kver);
> +
> +		return false;
> +	}
> +
> +	return true;
> +}

Hi Petr,
This looks good. I tested it (and other patches) as well.

on my system, test runs fine -
tst_test.c:2097: TINFO: Tested kernel: 7.1.4-1-default
...

and
on >=7.2

# ./fanotify20
tst_test.c:1118: TCONF: The test requires kernel 7.1 or older


so feel free to add
Tested-by: Avinesh Kumar <avinesh.kumar-IBi9RG/[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Avinesh Kumar <avinesh.kumar-IBi9RG/[email protected]>

for whole series.

Thanks,
Avinesh



-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp