From: xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com <xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH v2] copy_file_range03: comparing timestamp in tst_timespec_diff
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2021 07:54:30 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6135C939.4020903@fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210906060020.3219023-1-liwang@redhat.com>
Hi Li
Looks good to me.
Acked-by: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com>
Best Regards
Yang Xu
> The st_mtime field is defined as st_mtim.tv_sec for backward
> compatibility in struct stat, which might not precise enough
> for timestamp comparing.
>
> Here switch to timespec diff (with compare nanosecond as well) to
> get rid of this kind of rare faliure:
>
> 7 tst_test.c:1345: TINFO: Timeout per run is 0h 05m 00s
> 8 copy_file_range.h:36: TINFO: Testing libc copy_file_range()
> 9 copy_file_range03.c:48: TPASS: copy_file_range sucessfully updated the timestamp
> 10 tst_test.c:1345: TINFO: Timeout per run is 0h 05m 00s
> 11 copy_file_range.h:39: TINFO: Testing __NR_copy_file_range syscall
> 12 copy_file_range03.c:46: TFAIL: copy_file_range did not update timestamp.
>
> Also, raise the sleep time to 1.5 sec to make test more robust.
>
> Signed-off-by: Li Wang<liwang@redhat.com>
> ---
> .../copy_file_range/copy_file_range03.c | 17 ++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/copy_file_range/copy_file_range03.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/copy_file_range/copy_file_range03.c
> index 253eb57ad..5950c80c1 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/copy_file_range/copy_file_range03.c
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/copy_file_range/copy_file_range03.c
> @@ -12,26 +12,27 @@
> #define _GNU_SOURCE
>
> #include "tst_test.h"
> +#include "tst_timer.h"
> #include "copy_file_range.h"
>
> static int fd_src;
> static int fd_dest;
>
> -unsigned long get_timestamp(int fd)
> +struct timespec get_timestamp(int fd)
> {
> struct stat filestat;
>
> fstat(fd,&filestat);
> - return filestat.st_mtime;
> + return filestat.st_mtim;
> }
>
> static void verify_copy_file_range_timestamp(void)
> {
> loff_t offset;
> - unsigned long timestamp, updated_timestamp;
> + struct timespec timestamp1, timestamp2, diff;
>
> - timestamp = get_timestamp(fd_dest);
> - usleep(1000000);
> + timestamp1 = get_timestamp(fd_dest);
> + usleep(1500000);
>
> offset = 0;
> TEST(sys_copy_file_range(fd_src,&offset,
> @@ -40,9 +41,11 @@ static void verify_copy_file_range_timestamp(void)
> tst_brk(TBROK | TTERRNO,
> "copy_file_range unexpectedly failed");
>
> - updated_timestamp = get_timestamp(fd_dest);
> + timestamp2 = get_timestamp(fd_dest);
>
> - if (timestamp == updated_timestamp)
> + diff = tst_timespec_diff(timestamp1, timestamp2);
> +
> + if (!diff.tv_sec&& !diff.tv_nsec)
> tst_brk(TFAIL, "copy_file_range did not update timestamp.");
>
> tst_res(TPASS, "copy_file_range sucessfully updated the timestamp");
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com" <xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com>
To: Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com>
Cc: "ltp@lists.linux.it" <ltp@lists.linux.it>
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH v2] copy_file_range03: comparing timestamp in tst_timespec_diff
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2021 07:54:30 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6135C939.4020903@fujitsu.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20210906075430.FFk285k3vAOxC1SbeEvpHZ1cvGBGgPeWvI7yOqdQMec@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210906060020.3219023-1-liwang@redhat.com>
Hi Li
Looks good to me.
Acked-by: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com>
Best Regards
Yang Xu
> The st_mtime field is defined as st_mtim.tv_sec for backward
> compatibility in struct stat, which might not precise enough
> for timestamp comparing.
>
> Here switch to timespec diff (with compare nanosecond as well) to
> get rid of this kind of rare faliure:
>
> 7 tst_test.c:1345: TINFO: Timeout per run is 0h 05m 00s
> 8 copy_file_range.h:36: TINFO: Testing libc copy_file_range()
> 9 copy_file_range03.c:48: TPASS: copy_file_range sucessfully updated the timestamp
> 10 tst_test.c:1345: TINFO: Timeout per run is 0h 05m 00s
> 11 copy_file_range.h:39: TINFO: Testing __NR_copy_file_range syscall
> 12 copy_file_range03.c:46: TFAIL: copy_file_range did not update timestamp.
>
> Also, raise the sleep time to 1.5 sec to make test more robust.
>
> Signed-off-by: Li Wang<liwang@redhat.com>
> ---
> .../copy_file_range/copy_file_range03.c | 17 ++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/copy_file_range/copy_file_range03.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/copy_file_range/copy_file_range03.c
> index 253eb57ad..5950c80c1 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/copy_file_range/copy_file_range03.c
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/copy_file_range/copy_file_range03.c
> @@ -12,26 +12,27 @@
> #define _GNU_SOURCE
>
> #include "tst_test.h"
> +#include "tst_timer.h"
> #include "copy_file_range.h"
>
> static int fd_src;
> static int fd_dest;
>
> -unsigned long get_timestamp(int fd)
> +struct timespec get_timestamp(int fd)
> {
> struct stat filestat;
>
> fstat(fd,&filestat);
> - return filestat.st_mtime;
> + return filestat.st_mtim;
> }
>
> static void verify_copy_file_range_timestamp(void)
> {
> loff_t offset;
> - unsigned long timestamp, updated_timestamp;
> + struct timespec timestamp1, timestamp2, diff;
>
> - timestamp = get_timestamp(fd_dest);
> - usleep(1000000);
> + timestamp1 = get_timestamp(fd_dest);
> + usleep(1500000);
>
> offset = 0;
> TEST(sys_copy_file_range(fd_src,&offset,
> @@ -40,9 +41,11 @@ static void verify_copy_file_range_timestamp(void)
> tst_brk(TBROK | TTERRNO,
> "copy_file_range unexpectedly failed");
>
> - updated_timestamp = get_timestamp(fd_dest);
> + timestamp2 = get_timestamp(fd_dest);
>
> - if (timestamp == updated_timestamp)
> + diff = tst_timespec_diff(timestamp1, timestamp2);
> +
> + if (!diff.tv_sec&& !diff.tv_nsec)
> tst_brk(TFAIL, "copy_file_range did not update timestamp.");
>
> tst_res(TPASS, "copy_file_range sucessfully updated the timestamp");
--
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-06 7:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-06 6:00 [LTP] [PATCH v2] copy_file_range03: comparing timestamp in tst_timespec_diff Li Wang
2021-09-06 6:00 ` Li Wang
2021-09-06 7:54 ` xuyang2018.jy [this message]
2021-09-06 7:54 ` xuyang2018.jy
2021-09-06 8:59 ` Cyril Hrubis
2021-09-06 8:59 ` Cyril Hrubis
2021-09-06 10:35 ` Li Wang
2021-09-06 10:35 ` Li Wang
2021-09-06 10:38 ` Cyril Hrubis
2021-09-06 10:38 ` Cyril Hrubis
2021-09-06 10:42 ` Li Wang
2021-09-06 10:42 ` Li Wang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=6135C939.4020903@fujitsu.com \
--to=xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com \
--cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.