From: xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com <xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH v2] copy_file_range03: comparing timestamp in tst_timespec_diff
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2021 07:54:30 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6135C939.4020903@fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210906060020.3219023-1-liwang@redhat.com>
Hi Li
Looks good to me.
Acked-by: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com>
Best Regards
Yang Xu
> 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");
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com" <xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com>
To: Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com>
Cc: "ltp@lists.linux.it" <ltp@lists.linux.it>
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH v2] copy_file_range03: comparing timestamp in tst_timespec_diff
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2021 07:54:30 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6135C939.4020903@fujitsu.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20210906075430.FFk285k3vAOxC1SbeEvpHZ1cvGBGgPeWvI7yOqdQMec@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210906060020.3219023-1-liwang@redhat.com>
Hi Li
Looks good to me.
Acked-by: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com>
Best Regards
Yang Xu
> 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");
--
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-06 7:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-06 6:00 [LTP] [PATCH v2] copy_file_range03: comparing timestamp in tst_timespec_diff Li Wang
2021-09-06 6:00 ` Li Wang
2021-09-06 7:54 ` xuyang2018.jy [this message]
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=6135C939.4020903@fujitsu.com \
--to=xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.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