From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 09:11:53 +0100
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH V5 04/10] syscalls/fsopen: New tests
In-Reply-To: <20200311072502.hpj5bycslu6ygk74@vireshk-i7>
References: <cover.1582779464.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <495a95969c63d67868b82d2b15bd663f19780d0e.1582779464.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <20200306131046.GC3375@rei.lan>
 <20200311072502.hpj5bycslu6ygk74@vireshk-i7>
Message-ID: <20200312081153.GA16928@dell5510>
List-Id: <ltp.lists.linux.it>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: ltp@lists.linux.it

Hi Viresh,

> > > +	TEST(move_mount(fsmfd, "", AT_FDCWD, MNTPOINT,
> > > +			MOVE_MOUNT_F_EMPTY_PATH));
> > > +
> > > +	SAFE_CLOSE(fsmfd);
> > > +
> > > +	if (TST_RET == -1) {
> > > +		tst_res(TFAIL | TERRNO, "move_mount() failed");
> > > +		goto out;
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	if (tst_is_mounted(MNTPOINT))
> > > +		tst_res(TPASS, "%s: fsopen() passed", tc->name);
> > > +
> > > +	SAFE_UMOUNT(MNTPOINT);

> > I gues sthat the SAFE_UMOUNT() should be inside of the if here and in
> > the rest of the testcases.

> Petr had a similar comment earlier and here is my explanation to it.

> There should always be a unmount() in response to a successful call to
> mount() APIs. What if, because of some other bugs in the kernel or
> testsuite, tst_is_mounted() returns 0? We should still do the
> unmount() part as the mount() API didn't return an error.
But IMHO if device is not mounted we get TBROK due EINVAL in safe_umount().
I'd understand if this was in cleanup function where TBROK turns to TWARN.

Kind regards,
Petr