Re: [PATCH 3/3] generic: copy_file_range bounds test

Amir Goldstein
2018-12-03T09:23:06Z

On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 10:17 AM Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 09:25:19AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 8:43 AM Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> > >
> > > Test that copy_file_range will return the correct errors for various
> > > error conditions and boundary constraints.
> ....
> >
> > All the test cases above check for bugs, which I presume your kernel patch
> > series is aimed at fixing(?)
>
> Yes. Document the API (I have a man page patch) write the tests to
> exercise correct API behaviour (these patches), fix the API
> implementation until the tests start passing (still to be posted as
> I wait for these to hit mailing list archives so I can point at
> them).
>
> > This one last test case tests for new functionality that is not
> > currently available
> > for any filesystem in upstream kernel.
>
> Yup.
>
> > Does your kernel patch set also add this functionality to xfs? to generic?
>
> Yes and yes. overlay works, too, but I gave up caring about it
> because it doesn't support the ioctls xfs_io uses in this test to
> change open file state....

Oh, not a problem. I can add FS_IOC_FS[SG]ETXATTR
to the overlayfs white list of ioctls.

That raises the issue that the test is missing:

_require_xfs_io_command "chattr" "-i"

and the chattr -i in cleanup().

>
> > IMO, it would be better to split this test case for new functionality to a new
> > test, so that this one can pass on stable kernels once all the bug
> > fixes have been
> > applied.
>
> Whatever. I'm tired, I've already put in 13 hours on this today and
> I'm on the back of four 100+ hour weeks working on nothing but this
> broken heap of crap.
>
> Take it or leave it, because I'm just about burnt out on this
> right now...
>

I hear you.

I personally have no problem with declaring the cross fs copy_range an
interface bug fix that can also go to stable. It's probably going to be harder
to get your interface fixes without it.

I will leave the call about insisting on separate test to Eryu.
If you want me to submit that separate test, I can do that.

Thanks,
Amir.