[LTP] [PATCH v2] syscalls/copy_file_range02: increase coverage and remove EXDEV test

Amir Goldstein
2019-07-09T10:06:37Z

On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 9:57 AM Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> on 2019/07/08 23:17, Amir Goldstein wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 1:46 PM Yang Xu<xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >> Since Amir path for copy_file_range has been merged into linux-xfs,
> >> I add test for swapfile, immutable file, bounds in ltp. Also, add test
> >> for block char pipe dev and remove EXDEV test(5.3 will relax the cross-device
> >> constraint[2]). I follow xfstests code[3][4][5] and increase it .
> >>
> >> [1]https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/djwong/xfs-linux.git/commit/?h=for-next-5.3&id=5dae222a5ff0c269730393018a5539cc970a4726
> >> [2]https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/djwong/xfs-linux.git/commit/?h=for-next-5.3&id=96e6e8f4a68df2d94800311163faa67124df24e5
> >> [3]https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10971759/
> >> [4]https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10971747/
> >> [5]https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10961421/
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Yang Xu<xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
> >> ---
> >> .../copy_file_range/copy_file_range.h | 11 +-
> >> .../copy_file_range/copy_file_range02.c | 139 +++++++++++++++---
> >> 2 files changed, 130 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/copy_file_range/copy_file_range.h b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/copy_file_range/copy_file_range.h
> >> index b6d132978..f9e2565d9 100644
> >> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/copy_file_range/copy_file_range.h
> >> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/copy_file_range/copy_file_range.h
> >> @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
> >>
> >> #include<stdbool.h>
> >> #include<unistd.h>
> >> +#include<sys/sysmacros.h>
> >> #include "lapi/syscalls.h"
> >>
> >> #define TEST_VARIANTS 2
> >> @@ -18,10 +19,18 @@
> >> #define FILE_DEST_PATH "file_dest"
> >> #define FILE_RDONL_PATH "file_rdonl"
> >> #define FILE_DIR_PATH "file_dir"
> >> -#define FILE_MNTED_PATH MNTPOINT"/file_mnted"
> >> +#define FILE_IMMUTABLE_PATH "file_immutable"
> >> +#define FILE_SWAP_PATH "file_swap"
> >> +#define FILE_BLKDEV "file_blk"
> >> +#define FILE_CHRDEV "file_chr"
> >> +#define FILE_FIFO "file_fifo"
> >> +#define FILE_COPY_PATH "file_copy"
> >>
> >> #define CONTENT "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ12345\n"
> >> #define CONTSIZE (sizeof(CONTENT) - 1)
> >> +#define MAX_LEN ((long long)(~0ULL>> 1))
> >> +#define MIN_OFF 65537
> >> +#define MAX_OFF (MAX_LEN - MIN_OFF)
> > In the xfstest the value of MAX_OFF is ((1ULL<< 63) - MIN_OFF)
> > Not sure why it was changed here?
> Because the LONG LONG max value in kernel linux/limit.h is defined as" #define LLONG_MAX ((long long)(~0ULL>> 1))".
> I think it is a common usage. If you don't like this way, I will use the xfstests vaule.

No it makes sense. VFS max size is larger than XFS max size and
I think btrfs is limited for the VFS max.

Maybe it is better to define MAX_LFS_FILESIZE if it is not defined
in some ltp header file and #define MAX_LEN MAX_LFS_FILESIZE
leaving comments where due.

Also, I now wonder if running this test on 32bit kernel and with test
compiled for 32bit will yield the expected errors?

Thanks,
Amir.