public inbox for ltp@lists.linux.it
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH v2] copy_file_range03: comparing timestamp in tst_timespec_diff
Date: Mon,  6 Sep 2021 14:00:20 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210906060020.3219023-1-liwang@redhat.com> (raw)

The st_mtime field is defined as st_mtim.tv_sec for backward
compatibility in struct stat, which might not precise enough
for timestamp comparing.

Here switch to timespec diff (with compare nanosecond as well) to
get rid of this kind of rare faliure:

   7	tst_test.c:1345: TINFO: Timeout per run is 0h 05m 00s
   8	copy_file_range.h:36: TINFO: Testing libc copy_file_range()
   9	copy_file_range03.c:48: TPASS: copy_file_range sucessfully updated the timestamp
   10	tst_test.c:1345: TINFO: Timeout per run is 0h 05m 00s
   11	copy_file_range.h:39: TINFO: Testing __NR_copy_file_range syscall
   12	copy_file_range03.c:46: TFAIL: copy_file_range did not update timestamp.

Also, raise the sleep time to 1.5 sec to make test more robust.

Signed-off-by: Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com>
---
 .../copy_file_range/copy_file_range03.c         | 17 ++++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/copy_file_range/copy_file_range03.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/copy_file_range/copy_file_range03.c
index 253eb57ad..5950c80c1 100644
--- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/copy_file_range/copy_file_range03.c
+++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/copy_file_range/copy_file_range03.c
@@ -12,26 +12,27 @@
 #define _GNU_SOURCE
 
 #include "tst_test.h"
+#include "tst_timer.h"
 #include "copy_file_range.h"
 
 static int fd_src;
 static int fd_dest;
 
-unsigned long get_timestamp(int fd)
+struct timespec get_timestamp(int fd)
 {
 	struct stat filestat;
 
 	fstat(fd, &filestat);
-	return filestat.st_mtime;
+	return filestat.st_mtim;
 }
 
 static void verify_copy_file_range_timestamp(void)
 {
 	loff_t offset;
-	unsigned long timestamp, updated_timestamp;
+	struct timespec timestamp1, timestamp2, diff;
 
-	timestamp = get_timestamp(fd_dest);
-	usleep(1000000);
+	timestamp1 = get_timestamp(fd_dest);
+	usleep(1500000);
 
 	offset = 0;
 	TEST(sys_copy_file_range(fd_src, &offset,
@@ -40,9 +41,11 @@ static void verify_copy_file_range_timestamp(void)
 		tst_brk(TBROK | TTERRNO,
 				"copy_file_range unexpectedly failed");
 
-	updated_timestamp = get_timestamp(fd_dest);
+	timestamp2 = get_timestamp(fd_dest);
 
-	if (timestamp == updated_timestamp)
+	diff = tst_timespec_diff(timestamp1, timestamp2);
+
+	if (!diff.tv_sec && !diff.tv_nsec)
 		tst_brk(TFAIL, "copy_file_range did not update timestamp.");
 
 	tst_res(TPASS, "copy_file_range sucessfully updated the timestamp");
-- 
2.31.1


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH v2] copy_file_range03: comparing timestamp in tst_timespec_diff
Date: Mon,  6 Sep 2021 14:00:20 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210906060020.3219023-1-liwang@redhat.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20210906060020.Q4c2SRSNjzf_w4nIHWjrjShGbRjQcR0lnBWBfCg1NuI@z> (raw)

The st_mtime field is defined as st_mtim.tv_sec for backward
compatibility in struct stat, which might not precise enough
for timestamp comparing.

Here switch to timespec diff (with compare nanosecond as well) to
get rid of this kind of rare faliure:

   7	tst_test.c:1345: TINFO: Timeout per run is 0h 05m 00s
   8	copy_file_range.h:36: TINFO: Testing libc copy_file_range()
   9	copy_file_range03.c:48: TPASS: copy_file_range sucessfully updated the timestamp
   10	tst_test.c:1345: TINFO: Timeout per run is 0h 05m 00s
   11	copy_file_range.h:39: TINFO: Testing __NR_copy_file_range syscall
   12	copy_file_range03.c:46: TFAIL: copy_file_range did not update timestamp.

Also, raise the sleep time to 1.5 sec to make test more robust.

Signed-off-by: Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com>
---
 .../copy_file_range/copy_file_range03.c         | 17 ++++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/copy_file_range/copy_file_range03.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/copy_file_range/copy_file_range03.c
index 253eb57ad..5950c80c1 100644
--- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/copy_file_range/copy_file_range03.c
+++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/copy_file_range/copy_file_range03.c
@@ -12,26 +12,27 @@
 #define _GNU_SOURCE
 
 #include "tst_test.h"
+#include "tst_timer.h"
 #include "copy_file_range.h"
 
 static int fd_src;
 static int fd_dest;
 
-unsigned long get_timestamp(int fd)
+struct timespec get_timestamp(int fd)
 {
 	struct stat filestat;
 
 	fstat(fd, &filestat);
-	return filestat.st_mtime;
+	return filestat.st_mtim;
 }
 
 static void verify_copy_file_range_timestamp(void)
 {
 	loff_t offset;
-	unsigned long timestamp, updated_timestamp;
+	struct timespec timestamp1, timestamp2, diff;
 
-	timestamp = get_timestamp(fd_dest);
-	usleep(1000000);
+	timestamp1 = get_timestamp(fd_dest);
+	usleep(1500000);
 
 	offset = 0;
 	TEST(sys_copy_file_range(fd_src, &offset,
@@ -40,9 +41,11 @@ static void verify_copy_file_range_timestamp(void)
 		tst_brk(TBROK | TTERRNO,
 				"copy_file_range unexpectedly failed");
 
-	updated_timestamp = get_timestamp(fd_dest);
+	timestamp2 = get_timestamp(fd_dest);
 
-	if (timestamp == updated_timestamp)
+	diff = tst_timespec_diff(timestamp1, timestamp2);
+
+	if (!diff.tv_sec && !diff.tv_nsec)
 		tst_brk(TFAIL, "copy_file_range did not update timestamp.");
 
 	tst_res(TPASS, "copy_file_range sucessfully updated the timestamp");
-- 
2.31.1


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

             reply	other threads:[~2021-09-06  6:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-09-06  6:00 Li Wang [this message]
2021-09-06  6:00 ` [LTP] [PATCH v2] copy_file_range03: comparing timestamp in tst_timespec_diff Li Wang
2021-09-06  7:54 ` xuyang2018.jy
2021-09-06  7:54   ` xuyang2018.jy
2021-09-06  8:59 ` Cyril Hrubis
2021-09-06  8:59   ` Cyril Hrubis
2021-09-06 10:35   ` Li Wang
2021-09-06 10:35     ` Li Wang
2021-09-06 10:38     ` Cyril Hrubis
2021-09-06 10:38       ` Cyril Hrubis
2021-09-06 10:42       ` Li Wang
2021-09-06 10:42         ` Li Wang

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=20210906060020.3219023-1-liwang@redhat.com \
    --to=liwang@redhat.com \
    --cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox