From: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
To: Gaurav Pathak <gpathak@suse.de>
Cc: Gaurav Pathak <gaurav.pathak@suse.com>, ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/statx13: Add basic test for STATX_WRITE_ATOMIC on regular file
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2026 16:23:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260917142345.GB1856601@pevik> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260917105304.9674-1-gpathak@suse.de>
Hi all,
> This patch adds a new test to validate these atomic write limit fields.
> The test ensures the filesystem correctly advertises the STATX_ATTR_WRITE_ATOMIC
> attribute when queried on a file opened with O_DIRECT. It also verifies that the
> reported optimized maximum is logically consistent by falling within the
> absolute minimum and maximum boundaries. Furthermore, it checks that all
> reported atomic write unit sizes are valid powers of two, adhering to the strict
> requirements of the kernel block layer.
> If the underlying storage hardware or filesystem lacks atomic write
> support, the test gracefully skips with TCONF.
> Fixes: #1224
...
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/statx/statx13.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/statx/statx13.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000..ea42a102c
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/statx/statx13.c
...
> +#ifdef HAVE_STRUCT_STATX_STX_ATOMIC_WRITE_UNIT_MAX_OPT
Looking at this, I wonder why this and also older statx10.c, statx11.c does not
use ltp_statx added by Andrea in d89a232a7b ("Add SAFE_STATX macro")
Kind regards,
Petr
> + if (buff.stx_atomic_write_unit_max_opt == 0) {
> + tst_res(TINFO, "stx_atomic_write_unit_max_opt is 0 (no optimized max reported)");
> + } else {
> + if (buff.stx_atomic_write_unit_max_opt > buff.stx_atomic_write_unit_max)
> + tst_res(TFAIL, "stx_atomic_write_unit_max_opt (%u) exceeds max (%u)",
> + buff.stx_atomic_write_unit_max_opt,
> + buff.stx_atomic_write_unit_max);
> +
> + else if (buff.stx_atomic_write_unit_max_opt < buff.stx_atomic_write_unit_min)
> + tst_res(TFAIL, "stx_atomic_write_unit_max_opt (%u) is less than min (%u)",
> + buff.stx_atomic_write_unit_max_opt,
> + buff.stx_atomic_write_unit_min);
> + else
> + tst_res(TPASS, "stx_atomic_write_unit_max_opt (%u) is within valid range [%u, %u]",
> + buff.stx_atomic_write_unit_max_opt,
> + buff.stx_atomic_write_unit_min,
> + buff.stx_atomic_write_unit_max);
> +
> + if (__builtin_popcount(buff.stx_atomic_write_unit_max_opt) != 1)
> + tst_res(TFAIL, "stx_atomic_write_unit_max_opt (%u) is not a power of 2",
> + buff.stx_atomic_write_unit_max_opt);
> + }
> +#else
> + tst_res(TCONF, "stx_atomic_write_unit_max_opt is not defined in struct statx");
> +#endif
> +}
--
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-17 14:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-17 2:56 [LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/statx13: Add basic test for STATX_WRITE_ATOMIC on regular file Gaurav Pathak
2026-09-17 10:53 ` Gaurav Pathak
2026-09-17 11:17 ` [LTP] " linuxtestproject.agent
2026-09-17 14:19 ` [LTP] [PATCH] " Petr Vorel
2026-09-18 11:04 ` gpathak
2026-09-17 14:23 ` Petr Vorel [this message]
2026-09-18 11:12 ` [LTP] [PATCH v3] " Gaurav Pathak
2026-09-18 12:51 ` [LTP] " linuxtestproject.agent
2026-10-05 13:18 ` Andrea Cervesato via ltp
2026-10-08 14:26 ` [LTP] [PATCH] " Andrea Cervesato via ltp
2026-09-17 11:15 ` [LTP] " linuxtestproject.agent
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=20260917142345.GB1856601@pevik \
--to=pvorel@suse.cz \
--cc=gaurav.pathak@suse.com \
--cc=gpathak@suse.de \
--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