[LTP] [PATCH 1/2] syscalls/lseek01, 06: cleanup && convert to new API

[Xiao Yang]

On 2017/06/20 0:51, Cyril Hrubis wrote:
> Hi!
>> +static int fd;
>> +static struct tcase {
>> +	off_t off;
>> +	int whence;
>> +	off_t exp_off;
>> +	char *exp_data;
>> +} tcases[] = {
>> +	{4, SEEK_SET, 4, "efg"},
>> +	{-2, SEEK_CUR, 5, "fg"},
> This part actually depends on the fact that the file has been seeked and
> read in the previous test. I wonder if it would be less confusing if we
> reset the offset to a defined position (start of the file) before the
> the test.
>
Hi Cyril,

I want to avoid using lseek(2) directly to reset the offset, so i use 
read(2) to reset it to
end of file before every test.
>> +	{-4, SEEK_END, 3, "defg"},
>> +};
>> +
>> +static void verify_lseek(unsigned int n)
>>   {
>> -	int lc;
>> -
>> -	int ind;
>> -	int offset;
>> +	char read_buf[64];
>> +	struct tcase *tc =&tcases[n];
>>
>> -    /***************************************************************
>> -     * parse standard options
>> -     ***************************************************************/
>> -	tst_parse_opts(ac, av, NULL, NULL);
>> +	memset(read_buf, 0, sizeof(read_buf));
>>
>> -    /***************************************************************
>> -     * perform global setup for test
>> -     ***************************************************************/
>> -	setup();
>> -
>> -    /***************************************************************
>> -     * check looping state if -c option given
>> -     ***************************************************************/
>> -	for (lc = 0; TEST_LOOPING(lc); lc++) {
>> -
>> -		tst_count = 0;
>> -
>> -		offset = (lc % 100) * 4096;	/* max size is 100 blocks */
>> -
>> -		for (ind = 0; Whence[ind]>= 0; ind++) {
>> +	TEST(lseek(fd, tc->off, tc->whence));
>> +	if (TEST_RETURN == (off_t) -1) {
>> +		tst_res(TFAIL | TTERRNO, "lseek(%d, %ld, %d) failed", fd,
>> +			tc->off, tc->whence);
>> +		return;
>> +	}
>>
>> -			/*
>> -			 *  Call lseek(2)
>> -			 */
>> -			TEST(lseek(Fd, (long)offset, Whence[ind]));
>> +	if (TEST_RETURN != tc->exp_off) {
>> +		tst_res(TFAIL, "lseek(%d, %ld, %d) returned %ld, expected %ld",
>> +			fd, tc->off, tc->whence, TEST_RETURN, tc->exp_off);
>> +		return;
>> +	}
>>
>> -			/* check return code */
>> -			if (TEST_RETURN == -1) {
>> -				tst_resm(TFAIL,
>> -					 "lseek(%s, %d, 0) Failed, errno=%d : %s",
>> -					 Fname, offset, TEST_ERRNO,
>> -					 strerror(TEST_ERRNO));
>> -			} else {
>> -				tst_resm(TPASS,
>> -					 "lseek(%s, %d, %d) returned %ld",
>> -					 Fname, offset, Whence[ind],
>> -					 TEST_RETURN);
>> -			}
>> -		}
>> +	SAFE_READ(0, fd,&read_buf, sizeof(read_buf));
>>
>> +	if (strcmp(read_buf, tc->exp_data)) {
>> +		tst_res(TFAIL, "lseek(%d, %ld, %d) read incorrect data", fd,
>> +			tc->off, tc->whence);
>> +	} else {
>> +		tst_res(TPASS, "lseek(%d, %ld, %d) read correct data", fd,
>> +			tc->off, tc->whence);
> I guess that the fd here is not that useful and it may be a bit better
> to to translate the whence to its name, but that is very minor.
>
>>   	}
>> -
>> -	cleanup();
>> -	tst_exit();
>>   }
>>
>> -/***************************************************************
>> - * setup() - performs all ONE TIME setup for this test.
>> - ***************************************************************/
>> -void setup(void)
>> +static void setup(void)
>>   {
>> +	char write_buf[64];
>>
>> -	tst_sig(NOFORK, DEF_HANDLER, cleanup);
>> +	strcpy(write_buf, "abcdefg");
> There is no need for that. Just define the string and use sizeof instead
> of strlen, i.e.
>
> #define WRITE_STR "abcdefg"
>
> ...
> 	SAFE_WRITE(1, fd, WRITE_STR, sizeof(WRITE_STR) - 1);
> ...
>
> Or use SAFE_FILE_PRINTF(), then open() the fd.
>
>> -	TEST_PAUSE;
>> +	fd = SAFE_OPEN("tmp_file", O_RDWR | O_CREAT, 0644);
>>
>> -	tst_tmpdir();
>> -
>> -	sprintf(Fname, "tfile_%d", getpid());
>> -	if ((Fd = open(Fname, O_RDWR | O_CREAT, 0700)) == -1) {
>> -		tst_brkm(TBROK, cleanup,
>> -			 "open(%s, O_RDWR|O_CREAT,0700) Failed, errno=%d : %s",
>> -			 Fname, errno, strerror(errno));
>> -	}
>> +	SAFE_WRITE(1, fd, write_buf, strlen(write_buf));
>>   }
> Otherwise it looks fine.
Thanks for your comment.
I will send v2 patches soon.

Thanks,
Xiao Yang.