[LTP] [PATCH v4 2/3] syscalls/copy_file_range01: add cross-device test

[Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>]

on 2019/07/10 23:56, Xiao Yang wrote:

> On 07/10/2019 06:53 PM, Yang Xu wrote:
>> Amir has relaxed cross-device constraint since commit(vfs: allow
>> copy_file_range to copy across devices), I think we can remove it
>> in copy_file_range02 and test it in copy_file_range01.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>   .../copy_file_range/copy_file_range01.c       | 53 +++++++++++++++----
>>   1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git 
>> a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/copy_file_range/copy_file_range01.c 
>> b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/copy_file_range/copy_file_range01.c
>> index a5bd5e7f7..e1aa06c3e 100644
>> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/copy_file_range/copy_file_range01.c
>> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/copy_file_range/copy_file_range01.c
>> @@ -24,7 +24,17 @@
>>     static int page_size;
>>   static int errcount, numcopies;
>> -static int fd_in, fd_out;
>> +static int fd_in, fd_out, cross_sup;
>> +char FILE_TARGET_PATH[40];
>> +
>> +static struct tcase {
>> +    char    *path;
>> +    int     flags;
>> +    char    *message;
>> +} tcases[] = {
>> +    {FILE_DEST_PATH,  0, "non cross-device"},
>> +    {FILE_MNTED_PATH, 1, "cross-device"},
>> +};
>>     static int check_file_content(const char *fname1, const char 
>> *fname2,
>>       loff_t *off1, loff_t *off2, size_t len)
>> @@ -131,7 +141,7 @@ static void test_one(size_t len, loff_t *off_in, 
>> loff_t *off_out)
>>           to_copy -= TST_RET;
>>       } while (to_copy > 0);
>>   -    ret = check_file_content(FILE_SRC_PATH, FILE_DEST_PATH,
>> +    ret = check_file_content(FILE_SRC_PATH, FILE_TARGET_PATH,
>>           off_in, off_out, len);
>>       if (ret) {
>>           tst_res(TFAIL, "file contents do not match");
>> @@ -152,7 +162,7 @@ static void test_one(size_t len, loff_t *off_in, 
>> loff_t *off_out)
>>   static void open_files(void)
>>   {
>>       fd_in  = SAFE_OPEN(FILE_SRC_PATH, O_RDONLY);
>> -    fd_out = SAFE_OPEN(FILE_DEST_PATH, O_CREAT | O_WRONLY | O_TRUNC, 
>> 0644);
>> +    fd_out = SAFE_OPEN(FILE_TARGET_PATH, O_CREAT | O_WRONLY | 
>> O_TRUNC, 0644);
> Hi,
>
> Why don't we remove the global FILE_TARGET_PATH by passing tc->path to 
> open_files()?
OK. I will remove it and pass tc->path to open_files() ,test_one();

>
>>   }
>>     static void close_files(void)
>> @@ -163,9 +173,18 @@ static void close_files(void)
>>           SAFE_CLOSE(fd_in);
>>   }
>>   -static void copy_file_range_verify(void)
>> +static void copy_file_range_verify(unsigned int n)
>>   {
>>       int i, j, k;
>> +    struct tcase *tc = &tcases[n];
>> +
>> +    if (tc->flags && !cross_sup) {
>> +        tst_res(TCONF,
>> +            "copy_file_range doesn't support cross-device, skip it");
>> +        return;
>> +    }
>
> Perhaps, we can remove the global cross_sup and check of EXDEV in 
> setup() by passing tc->flag to one_test().
OK. I will use tc->flag in setup,  flag =2 is equal to TCONF(doesn't support cross-dev).

>
>> +
>> +    strcpy(FILE_TARGET_PATH, tc->path);
>>         errcount = numcopies = 0;
>>       size_t len_arr[]    = {11, page_size-1, page_size, page_size+1};
>> @@ -190,25 +209,33 @@ static void copy_file_range_verify(void)
>>         if (errcount == 0)
>>           tst_res(TPASS,
>> -            "copy_file_range completed all %d copy jobs successfully!",
>> -            numcopies);
>> +            "%s copy_file_range completed all %d copy jobs 
>> successfully!",
>> +            tc->message, numcopies);
>>       else
>> -        tst_res(TFAIL, "copy_file_range failed %d of %d copy jobs.",
>> -                errcount, numcopies);
>> +        tst_res(TFAIL, "%s copy_file_range failed %d of %d copy jobs.",
>> +            tc->message, errcount, numcopies);
>>   }
>>     static void setup(void)
>>   {
>> -    int i, fd;
>> +    int i, fd, fd_test;
>>         syscall_info();
>>         page_size = getpagesize();
>> -
>> +    cross_sup = 1;
>>       fd = SAFE_OPEN(FILE_SRC_PATH, O_RDWR | O_CREAT, 0664);
>>       /* Writing page_size * 4 of data into test file */
>>       for (i = 0; i < (int)(page_size * 4); i++)
>>           SAFE_WRITE(1, fd, CONTENT, CONTSIZE);
>> +
>> +    fd_test = SAFE_OPEN(FILE_MNTED_PATH, O_RDWR | O_CREAT, 0664);
>> +    TEST(sys_copy_file_range(fd, 0, fd_test, 0, CONTSIZE, 0));
>> +    if (TST_ERR == EXDEV)
>> +        cross_sup = 0;
>> +
>> +    SAFE_CLOSE(fd_test);
>> +    remove(FILE_MNTED_PATH);
> Is it necessary to remove it?
>
I want to test on a clean environment, like FILE_DEST_PATH.
> Best Regards,
> Xiao Yang
>>       SAFE_CLOSE(fd);
>>   }
>>   @@ -220,7 +247,11 @@ static void cleanup(void)
>>   static struct tst_test test = {
>>       .setup = setup,
>>       .cleanup = cleanup,
>> +    .tcnt = ARRAY_SIZE(tcases),
>>       .needs_tmpdir = 1,
>> -    .test_all = copy_file_range_verify,
>> +    .mount_device = 1,
>> +    .mntpoint = MNTPOINT,
>> +    .all_filesystems = 1,
>> +    .test = copy_file_range_verify,
>>       .test_variants = TEST_VARIANTS,
>>   };
>
>
>
>
> .
>