Re: [LTP] [PATCH v7 3/3] syscalls/copy_file_range02: increase coverage and remove EXDEV test

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

on 2019/08/07 18:17, Murphy Zhou wrote:

> And I have a question about LTP itself.
>
> If we run the testcase directly like:
> 	 ./testcases/kernel/syscalls/copy_file_range/copy_file_range02
>
> to test all_filesystems, for every filesystem, we mkfs and mount it in
> .mntpoint, but we do not chdir to .mntpoint. So we are running tests in 
> the same tmpdir, fs type of which does not change while looping
> all_filesystems.  Only the .mntpoint in tmpdir has different fs type in
> each loop.
>
> Now we are using this to test cross-device copy in copy_file_range01.c,
> but in copy_file_range02.c, we are not using .mntpint at all, all the
> tests in the all_filesystems loop are running in the same tmpdir. In other
> words, we are NOT testing all filesystems.
>
> Is this expected?
 I removed the mnted test for cross-device copy_file_range in copy_file_range02.c.
And I ignore the non-used mntpoint. IMO, we can directly use the FILE_MNTED to test EFBIG on all filesystems, 

as below:
diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/copy_file_range/copy_file_range02.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/copy_file_range/copy_file_range02.c
index 26bfa008a..67974ffa2 100644
--- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/copy_file_range/copy_file_range02.c
+++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/copy_file_range/copy_file_range02.c
@@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ static int fd_blkdev;
 static int fd_chrdev;
 static int fd_fifo;
 static int fd_copy;
+static int fd_mnted;

 static int chattr_i_nsup;
 static int swap_nsup;

@@ -73,7 +74,7 @@ static struct tcase {
        {&fd_chrdev,    0,   EINVAL,     0,     CONTSIZE},
        {&fd_fifo,      0,   EINVAL,     0,     CONTSIZE},
        {&fd_copy,      0,   EOVERFLOW,  MAX_OFF, ULLONG_MAX},
-       {&fd_copy,      0,   EFBIG,      MAX_OFF, MIN_OFF},
+       {&fd_mnted,      0,   EFBIG,      MAX_OFF, MIN_OFF},
 };

 static int run_command(char *command, char *option, char *file)
@@ -117,7 +118,10 @@ static void verify_copy_file_range(unsigned int n)
                        tst_res(TPASS | TTERRNO,
                                        "copy_file_range failed as expected");
                } else {
-                       tst_res(TFAIL | TTERRNO,
+                       if (tc->exp_err == EFBIG && TST_ERR == EXDEV)
+                               tst_res(TCONF, "copy_file_range doesn't support cross-device,skip it");
+                       else
+                               tst_res(TFAIL | TTERRNO,
                                "copy_file_range failed unexpectedly; expected %s, but got",
                                tst_strerrno(tc->exp_err));
                        return;

@@ -152,6 +156,8 @@ static void cleanup(void)
                SAFE_CLOSE(fd_dup);
        if (fd_copy > 0)
                SAFE_CLOSE(fd_copy);
+       if (fd_mnted > 0)
+               SAFE_CLOSE(fd_mnted);
        SAFE_UNLINK(FILE_FIFO);
 }

@@ -194,6 +200,7 @@ static void setup(void)

        fd_copy = SAFE_OPEN(FILE_COPY_PATH, O_RDWR | O_CREAT | O_TRUNC, 0664);
        chattr_i_nsup = run_command("chattr", "+i", FILE_IMMUTABLE_PATH);
+       fd_mnted  = SAFE_OPEN(FILE_MNTED_PATH, O_RDWR | O_CREAT, 0664);

        if (!tst_fs_has_free(".", sysconf(_SC_PAGESIZE) * 10, TST_BYTES)) {
                tst_res(TCONF, "Insufficient disk space to create swap file");
                swap_nsup = 3;

test12) succeed on extN, failed on both btrfs and xfs, we need to detect filesystem type to handle. Or, I think we 
can set a limit on filesize because this kind of user scene is a bit more than the first one , the EFBIG error can be 
received easily (Also, we don't need  mnt_device mntpoint all_filesystem if so).
What do you think about it?

> I commented out testcases in copy_file_range02.c other then #12, and add
> some nasty debug info: