From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67E8CCE7AE8 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2024 08:36:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F08A3C24DC for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2024 10:36:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from in-5.smtp.seeweb.it (in-5.smtp.seeweb.it [217.194.8.5]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03FE43C03B0 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2024 10:36:39 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: in-5.smtp.seeweb.it; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=suse.cz (client-ip=195.135.223.130; helo=smtp-out1.suse.de; envelope-from=pvorel@suse.cz; receiver=lists.linux.it) Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.223.130]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-5.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 66430610215 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2024 10:36:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org [IPv6:2a07:de40:b281:104:10:150:64:97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7761A21841; Fri, 6 Sep 2024 08:36:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp-out1.suse.de; none Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 488FD136A8; Fri, 6 Sep 2024 08:36:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id yndSDxa/2mZdSQAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Fri, 06 Sep 2024 08:36:38 +0000 Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 10:36:28 +0200 From: Petr Vorel To: Martin Doucha Message-ID: <20240906083628.GA990068@pevik> References: <20240905134502.33759-1-mdoucha@suse.cz> <20240906081754.GB985598@pevik> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 50.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 7761A21841 X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-Rspamd-Action: no action X-Rspamd-Server: rspamd2.dmz-prg2.suse.org X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.3 at in-5.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 1/2] fallocate05: Check that deallocated file range is marked as a hole X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Petr Vorel Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" > On 06. 09. 24 10:17, Petr Vorel wrote: > > Hi Martin, > > > The new lseek(SEEK_HOLE/SEEK_DATA) checks will be useful for diagnosing > > > why the final write() check fails with ENOSPC. If the hole doesn't get > > > created at all, the lseek() checks will fail. > > Thank you! > > ... > > > + /* Check that the deallocated file range is marked as a hole */ > > > + TEST(lseek(fd, 0, SEEK_HOLE)); > > > + > > > + if (TST_RET == 0) { > > > + tst_res(TPASS, "Test file contains hole at offset 0"); > > > + } else if (TST_RET == -1) { > > > + tst_res(TFAIL | TTERRNO, "lseek(SEEK_HOLE) failed"); > > > + } else { > > > + tst_res(TFAIL | TTERRNO, > > > + "Unexpected lseek(SEEK_HOLE) return value %ld", > > > + TST_RET); > > > + } > > nit: maybe just using SAFE_LSEEK()? > Definitely no SAFE_LSEEK() here because I want to continue to the second > lseek() even if the first one fails. OK, fair enough. > > > + > > > + TEST(lseek(fd, 0, SEEK_DATA)); > > > + > > > + if (TST_RET == holesize) { > > > + tst_res(TPASS, "Test file data start at offset %ld", TST_RET); > > > + } else if (TST_RET == -1) { > > > + tst_res(TFAIL | TTERRNO, "lseek(SEEK_DATA) failed"); > > > + } else { > > > + tst_res(TFAIL | TTERRNO, > > > + "Unexpected lseek(SEEK_DATA) return value %ld", > > > + TST_RET); > > > + } > > nit: and here just: > > TEST(SAFE_LSEEK(fd, 0, SEEK_DATA)); > > if (TST_RET == holesize) > > tst_res(TPASS, "Test file data start at offset %ld", TST_RET); > We could use SAFE_LSEEK() here at least until someone decides to add another > sanity check below it. But we still need the "else" branch to report wrong > hole size. I'd say it's slightly better to keep it as is for the more > descriptive error messages. Fair enough, thx for info. Kind regards, Petr -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp