[LTP] [PATCH v2] syscalls/copy_file_range02: increase coverage and remove EXDEV test

[Amir Goldstein]

On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 9:57 AM Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> on 2019/07/08 23:17, Amir Goldstein wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 1:46 PM Yang Xu<xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>  wrote:
> >> Since Amir path for copy_file_range has been merged into linux-xfs,
> >> I add test for swapfile, immutable file, bounds in ltp.  Also, add test
> >> for block char pipe dev and remove EXDEV test(5.3 will relax the cross-device
> >> constraint[2]).  I follow xfstests code[3][4][5] and increase it .
> >>
> >> [1]https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/djwong/xfs-linux.git/commit/?h=for-next-5.3&id=5dae222a5ff0c269730393018a5539cc970a4726
> >> [2]https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/djwong/xfs-linux.git/commit/?h=for-next-5.3&id=96e6e8f4a68df2d94800311163faa67124df24e5
> >> [3]https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10971759/
> >> [4]https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10971747/
> >> [5]https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10961421/
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Yang Xu<xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
> >> ---
> >>   .../copy_file_range/copy_file_range.h         |  11 +-
> >>   .../copy_file_range/copy_file_range02.c       | 139 +++++++++++++++---
> >>   2 files changed, 130 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/copy_file_range/copy_file_range.h b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/copy_file_range/copy_file_range.h
> >> index b6d132978..f9e2565d9 100644
> >> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/copy_file_range/copy_file_range.h
> >> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/copy_file_range/copy_file_range.h
> >> @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
> >>
> >>   #include<stdbool.h>
> >>   #include<unistd.h>
> >> +#include<sys/sysmacros.h>
> >>   #include "lapi/syscalls.h"
> >>
> >>   #define TEST_VARIANTS  2
> >> @@ -18,10 +19,18 @@
> >>   #define FILE_DEST_PATH  "file_dest"
> >>   #define FILE_RDONL_PATH "file_rdonl"
> >>   #define FILE_DIR_PATH  "file_dir"
> >> -#define FILE_MNTED_PATH        MNTPOINT"/file_mnted"
> >> +#define FILE_IMMUTABLE_PATH "file_immutable"
> >> +#define FILE_SWAP_PATH "file_swap"
> >> +#define FILE_BLKDEV    "file_blk"
> >> +#define FILE_CHRDEV    "file_chr"
> >> +#define FILE_FIFO      "file_fifo"
> >> +#define FILE_COPY_PATH  "file_copy"
> >>
> >>   #define CONTENT                "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ12345\n"
> >>   #define CONTSIZE       (sizeof(CONTENT) - 1)
> >> +#define MAX_LEN   ((long long)(~0ULL>>  1))
> >> +#define MIN_OFF   65537
> >> +#define MAX_OFF   (MAX_LEN - MIN_OFF)
> > In the xfstest the value of MAX_OFF is ((1ULL<<  63) - MIN_OFF)
> > Not sure why it was changed here?
> Because the LONG LONG max value in kernel linux/limit.h is defined as" #define LLONG_MAX  ((long long)(~0ULL>>  1))".
> I think it is a common usage.   If you don't like this way, I will use the xfstests vaule.

No it makes sense. VFS max size is larger than XFS max size and
I think btrfs is limited for the VFS max.

Maybe it is better to define MAX_LFS_FILESIZE if it is not defined
in some ltp header file and #define MAX_LEN MAX_LFS_FILESIZE
leaving comments where due.

Also, I now wonder if running this test on 32bit kernel and with test
compiled for 32bit will yield the expected errors?

Thanks,
Amir.