[LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/ioctl_loop05: Ensure do zero offset in kernel always

[Xiao Yang <yangx.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>]

On 2020/5/8 14:15, Yang Xu wrote:
> Currently, we use return instead of zero_offset. I debug this code
> (early return, ext4 filesystem)as below:
> ---------------------------------------
> TEST(ioctl(dev_fd, LOOP_SET_DIRECT_IO, 1));
> if (TST_RET == 0) {
> 	tst_res(TPASS, "LOOP_SET_DIRECT_IO succeeded unexpectedly");
>          SAFE_IOCTL(dev_fd, LOOP_SET_DIRECT_IO, 0);
> }
> return;
> ---------------------------------------
> this case will broke when using i parameter,
> ioctl_loop05.c:62: BROK: ioctl(3,LOOP_SET_DIRECT_IO,...) failed: EINVAL (22)
>
> It seems the last test affected this test, so I think we should use
> goto instead of return. Also including a typo, updata->update.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yang Xu<xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
> ---
>   testcases/kernel/syscalls/ioctl/ioctl_loop05.c | 5 +++--
>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ioctl/ioctl_loop05.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ioctl/ioctl_loop05.c
> index 6cf701f47..a103aaa94 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ioctl/ioctl_loop05.c
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ioctl/ioctl_loop05.c
> @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
>    *
>    * This is a basic ioctl test about loopdevice.
>    *
> - * It is designed to test LOOP_SET_DIRECT_IO can updata a live
> + * It is designed to test LOOP_SET_DIRECT_IO can update a live
Hi Xu,

What does the line changes?

>    * loop device dio mode. It needs the backing file also supports
>    * dio mode and the lo_offset is aligned with the logical block size.
>    *
> @@ -85,13 +85,14 @@ static void verify_ioctl_loop(void)
>   	if (TST_RET == 0) {
>   		tst_res(TPASS, "LOOP_SET_DIRECT_IO succeeded");
>   		SAFE_IOCTL(dev_fd, LOOP_SET_DIRECT_IO, 0);
> -		return;
> +		goto zero_offset;
>   	}
>   	if (TST_ERR == EINVAL)
>   		tst_res(TPASS | TTERRNO, "LOOP_SET_DIRECT_IO failed as expected");
>   	else
>   		tst_res(TFAIL | TTERRNO, "LOOP_SET_DIRECT_IO failed expected EINVAL got");
>
> +zero_offset:
>   	loopinfo.lo_offset = 0;
>   	TST_RETRY_FUNC(ioctl(dev_fd, LOOP_SET_STATUS,&loopinfo), TST_RETVAL_EQ0);

You have cleared the struct loopinfo at the beginning of 
verify_ioctl_loop(), so could we just drop loopinfo.lo_offset = 0 and 
move 'TST_RETRY_FUNC(ioctl(dev_fd, LOOP_SET_STATUS,&loopinfo), 
TST_RETVAL_EQ0);' to the beginning?

Thanks,
Xiao Yang
>   }