Re: [PATCH] generic/683: _require_chmod

On 8/20/26 9:37 AM, Zorro Lang wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2026 at 03:32:01PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> generic/683 uses chmod but does not _require_chmod, so filesystems
>> like exfat fail.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <[email protected]>
>> ---
> 
> Hi Eric,
> 
> So great to see you ! This patch makes sense to me. Actually, g/683 belongs
> to the same group/patchset of SUID test cases as g/684 through g/688, and all
> of them use chmod. If we need to add _require_chmod to g/683, I would suggest
> adding it to all of them.

Ok, fair enough - I should have looked more closely, and when running exfat
all of those tests properly did a _notrun due to /other/ constraints, but
we probably should explicitly mark each requirement even if they are
stacked.

I wonder if some sort of checkpatch or linter for xfstests might be
helpful, it's pretty simple to grep a test for chmod and ensure that
it has _require_chmod for example.

... or I wonder if it would be runtime-prohibitive to just build that
into the check script; if the script contains "chmod," run _require_chmod
automatically... similar for all the other trivial _require tests.

But maybe that's trying to be too clever. :)

-Eric

> Thanks,
> Zorro
> 
>>
>> diff --git a/tests/generic/683 b/tests/generic/683
>> index 883905da..226d2758 100755
>> --- a/tests/generic/683
>> +++ b/tests/generic/683
>> @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ _cleanup()
>>  # Modify as appropriate.
>>  _require_user
>>  _require_test
>> +_require_chmod
>>  verb=falloc
>>  _require_xfs_io_command $verb
>>  _require_congruent_file_oplen $TEST_DIR 65536
>>