[LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/ioctl_loop05: Ensure do zero offset in kernel always

[Yang Xu]

Hi Xiao


> On 2020/5/8 14:15, Yang Xu wrote:
>> Currently, we use return instead of zero_offset. I debug this code
>> (early return, ext4 filesystem)as below:
>> ---------------------------------------
>> TEST(ioctl(dev_fd, LOOP_SET_DIRECT_IO, 1));
>> if (TST_RET == 0) {
>>     tst_res(TPASS, "LOOP_SET_DIRECT_IO succeeded unexpectedly");
>>          SAFE_IOCTL(dev_fd, LOOP_SET_DIRECT_IO, 0);
>> }
>> return;
>> ---------------------------------------
>> this case will broke when using i parameter,
>> ioctl_loop05.c:62: BROK: ioctl(3,LOOP_SET_DIRECT_IO,...) failed: 
>> EINVAL (22)
>>
>> It seems the last test affected this test, so I think we should use
>> goto instead of return. Also including a typo, updata->update.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yang Xu<xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
>> ---
>>   testcases/kernel/syscalls/ioctl/ioctl_loop05.c | 5 +++--
>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ioctl/ioctl_loop05.c 
>> b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ioctl/ioctl_loop05.c
>> index 6cf701f47..a103aaa94 100644
>> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ioctl/ioctl_loop05.c
>> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ioctl/ioctl_loop05.c
>> @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
>>    *
>>    * This is a basic ioctl test about loopdevice.
>>    *
>> - * It is designed to test LOOP_SET_DIRECT_IO can updata a live
>> + * It is designed to test LOOP_SET_DIRECT_IO can update a live
> Hi Xu,
> 
> What does the line changes?
just a typo, updata->update
> 
>>    * loop device dio mode. It needs the backing file also supports
>>    * dio mode and the lo_offset is aligned with the logical block size.
>>    *
>> @@ -85,13 +85,14 @@ static void verify_ioctl_loop(void)
>>       if (TST_RET == 0) {
>>           tst_res(TPASS, "LOOP_SET_DIRECT_IO succeeded");
>>           SAFE_IOCTL(dev_fd, LOOP_SET_DIRECT_IO, 0);
>> -        return;
>> +        goto zero_offset;
>>       }
>>       if (TST_ERR == EINVAL)
>>           tst_res(TPASS | TTERRNO, "LOOP_SET_DIRECT_IO failed as 
>> expected");
>>       else
>>           tst_res(TFAIL | TTERRNO, "LOOP_SET_DIRECT_IO failed expected 
>> EINVAL got");
>>
>> +zero_offset:
>>       loopinfo.lo_offset = 0;
>>       TST_RETRY_FUNC(ioctl(dev_fd, LOOP_SET_STATUS,&loopinfo), 
>> TST_RETVAL_EQ0);
> 
> You have cleared the struct loopinfo at the beginning of 
> verify_ioctl_loop(), so could we just drop loopinfo.lo_offset = 0 and 
> move 'TST_RETRY_FUNC(ioctl(dev_fd, LOOP_SET_STATUS,&loopinfo), 
> TST_RETVAL_EQ0);' to the beginning?
Yes. IMO, at the beginning or end, they all work well.
> 
> Thanks,
> Xiao Yang
>>   }
>