All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Cc: mszeredi@redhat.com, brauner@kernel.org, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	lkp@intel.com, oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev,
	kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
	viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	Reuben Hawkins <reubenhwk@gmail.com>,
	ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] vfs: fix readahead(2) on block devices
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2023 15:27:20 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZRBHSACF5NdZoQwx@casper.infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOQ4uxjmyfKmOxP0MZQPfu8PL3KjLeC=HwgEACo21MJg-6rD7g@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 02:47:42PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> Since you joined the discussion, you have the opportunity to agree or
> disagree with our decision to change readahead() to ESPIPE.
> Judging  by your citing of lseek and posix_fadvise standard,
> I assume that you will be on board?

I'm fine with returning ESPIPE (it's like ENOTTY in a sense).  but
that's not what kbuild reported:

readahead01.c:62: TFAIL: readahead(fd[0], 0, getpagesize()) succeeded

61:	fd[0] = SAFE_SOCKET(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0);
62:	TST_EXP_FAIL(readahead(fd[0], 0, getpagesize()), EINVAL);

I think LTP would report 'wrong error code' rather than 'succeeded'
if it were returning ESPIPE.

I'm not OK with readahead() succeeding on a socket.  I think that should
also return ESPIPE.  I think posix_fadvise() should return ESPIPE on a
socket too, but reporting bugs to the Austin Group seems quite painful.
Perhaps somebody has been through this process and can do that for us?


-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Cc: Reuben Hawkins <reubenhwk@gmail.com>,
	brauner@kernel.org, Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>,
	mszeredi@redhat.com, lkp@intel.com,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
	viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev,
	ltp@lists.linux.it, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] vfs: fix readahead(2) on block devices
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2023 15:27:20 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZRBHSACF5NdZoQwx@casper.infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOQ4uxjmyfKmOxP0MZQPfu8PL3KjLeC=HwgEACo21MJg-6rD7g@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 02:47:42PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> Since you joined the discussion, you have the opportunity to agree or
> disagree with our decision to change readahead() to ESPIPE.
> Judging  by your citing of lseek and posix_fadvise standard,
> I assume that you will be on board?

I'm fine with returning ESPIPE (it's like ENOTTY in a sense).  but
that's not what kbuild reported:

readahead01.c:62: TFAIL: readahead(fd[0], 0, getpagesize()) succeeded

61:	fd[0] = SAFE_SOCKET(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0);
62:	TST_EXP_FAIL(readahead(fd[0], 0, getpagesize()), EINVAL);

I think LTP would report 'wrong error code' rather than 'succeeded'
if it were returning ESPIPE.

I'm not OK with readahead() succeeding on a socket.  I think that should
also return ESPIPE.  I think posix_fadvise() should return ESPIPE on a
socket too, but reporting bugs to the Austin Group seems quite painful.
Perhaps somebody has been through this process and can do that for us?


  reply	other threads:[~2023-09-24 14:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-09-09  4:38 [PATCH] vfs: fix readahead(2) on block devices Reuben Hawkins
2023-09-09  6:36 ` Amir Goldstein
2023-09-10 10:02   ` Christian Brauner
2023-09-11  8:15     ` Amir Goldstein
2023-09-19  2:47 ` [LTP] " kernel test robot
2023-09-19  2:47   ` kernel test robot
2023-09-19  8:43   ` [LTP] " Amir Goldstein
2023-09-19  8:43     ` Amir Goldstein
2023-09-21 13:01     ` [LTP] " Reuben Hawkins
2023-09-21 14:44       ` Amir Goldstein
2023-09-21 14:44         ` Amir Goldstein
2023-09-22  9:10       ` [LTP] " Cyril Hrubis
2023-09-22  9:10         ` Cyril Hrubis
2023-09-22 20:29         ` Reuben Hawkins
2023-09-23  5:56           ` Amir Goldstein
2023-09-23  5:56             ` Amir Goldstein
2023-09-23 12:20             ` Reuben Hawkins
2023-09-23 12:28               ` Reuben Hawkins
2023-09-23 14:41             ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-09-23 14:41               ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-09-23 15:48               ` Amir Goldstein
2023-09-23 15:48                 ` Amir Goldstein
2023-09-24  3:48                 ` Reuben Hawkins
2023-09-24  6:46                   ` Amir Goldstein
2023-09-24  6:46                     ` Amir Goldstein
2023-09-24 11:47                     ` Amir Goldstein
2023-09-24 11:47                       ` Amir Goldstein
2023-09-24 14:27                       ` Matthew Wilcox [this message]
2023-09-24 14:27                         ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-09-24 15:32                         ` Amir Goldstein
2023-09-24 15:32                           ` Amir Goldstein
2023-09-24 21:56                           ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-09-24 21:56                             ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-09-25  4:35                             ` Reuben Hawkins
2023-09-25  6:42                               ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-09-25  6:42                                 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-09-25  9:43                                 ` Amir Goldstein
2023-09-25  9:43                                   ` Amir Goldstein
2023-09-25 12:39                                   ` Christian Brauner
2023-09-25 12:39                                     ` Christian Brauner
2023-09-25 15:36                                   ` Reuben Hawkins
2023-09-25 16:51                                     ` Amir Goldstein
2023-09-25 16:51                                       ` Amir Goldstein
2023-09-26 10:08                                       ` Christian Brauner
2023-09-26 10:08                                         ` Christian Brauner
2023-09-26  1:56                           ` Oliver Sang
2023-09-26  1:56                             ` Oliver Sang
2023-09-26  5:34                             ` Amir Goldstein
2023-09-26  5:34                               ` Amir Goldstein

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=ZRBHSACF5NdZoQwx@casper.infradead.org \
    --to=willy@infradead.org \
    --cc=amir73il@gmail.com \
    --cc=brauner@kernel.org \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lkp@intel.com \
    --cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
    --cc=mszeredi@redhat.com \
    --cc=oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=oliver.sang@intel.com \
    --cc=reubenhwk@gmail.com \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    /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.