On Sat, Oct 01, 2016 at 09:32:13AM +0100, Mike Fleetwood wrote: > On 30 September 2016 at 18:00, Brian C. Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 08:42:40PM +0100, Mike Fleetwood wrote: > >> MAC partition table reserves partition 1 for the partition map > >> partition, so the created test partition will be number 2. Adapt > >> accordingly. > >> > >> Setting flags 'root' and 'swap' also sets the partition name to 'root' > >> and 'swap' respectively, so no longer match the partition name in > >> extract_flags(). > >> > >> Don't test lvm and raid flags as they fail to be cleared with a single > >> set off command. See FIXME comment in the test for more details. > >> --- > >> tests/t3310-flags.sh | 22 ++++++++++++++++++---- > >> 1 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/tests/t3310-flags.sh b/tests/t3310-flags.sh > >> index d20d6d4..7f1f65b 100644 > >> --- a/tests/t3310-flags.sh > >> +++ b/tests/t3310-flags.sh > >> @@ -22,10 +22,11 @@ dev=dev-file > >> > >> extract_flags() > >> { > >> - perl -nle '/^1:2048s:4095s:2048s::(?:PTNNAME)?:(.+);$/ and print $1' > >> "$@" > >> + perl -nle '/^[^:]*:2048s:4095s:2048s::[^:]*:(.+);$/ and print $1' "$@" > >> } > > > > Isn't this going to drop setting $1 as the partition name? > > No it's not. $1 was always, and still is, set to the flags in the last > field by "(.+)". The "?:" bit in this fragment "(?:PTNNAME)?" is a > non-capturing grouping. man perlretut.
Ah! Thanks for the explanation. -- Brian C. Lane (PST8PDT)
