[LTP] [PATCH 2/2] syscalls/sendfile: Convert sendfile09 to the new API

[Xie Ziyao]

>> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/sendfile/sendfile09.c
> ...
>> + * Copyright (c) International Business Machines  Corp., 2014
> Again, missing copyright.
I wonder if I should add copyright without changing the code logic.

> 
>> +/*\
>> + * [Description]
>>    *
>> - * DESCRIPTION
>> - *        Testcase copied from sendfile02.c to test the basic functionality of
>> - *        the sendfile(2) system call on large file. There is a kernel bug which
>> - *        introduced by commit 8f9c0119d7ba and fixed by commit 5d73320a96fcc.
>> + * Testcase copied from sendfile02.c to test the basic functionality of
>> + * the sendfile(2) system call on large file. There is a kernel bug which
>> + * introduced by commit 8f9c0119d7ba and fixed by commit 5d73320a96fcc.
> If 8f9c0119d7ba caused a regression it shouldn't be in .tags (it contains
> commits which are fixes and should be backported). Also it's a question if it's
> useful info, because this commit is mentioned in 5d73320a96fcc (fixing commit).
Agree with you.

> 
>>    *
>> - * ALGORITHM
>> - *        1. call sendfile(2) with offset at 0
>> - *        2. call sendfile(2) with offset at 3GB
>> + * [Algorithm]
>>    *
>> - * USAGE:  <for command-line>
>> - *  sendfile09 [-c n] [-i n] [-I x] [-P x] [-t]
>> - *     where,
>> - *             -i n : Execute test n times.
>> - *             -I x : Execute test for x seconds.
>> - *             -P x : Pause for x seconds between iterations.
>> - *             -t   : Turn on syscall timing.
>> + * 1. Call sendfile(2) with offset at 0;
>> + * 2. Call sendfile(2) with offset at 3GB.
>>    *
>> + * [Restrictions]
>>    *
>> - * RESTRICTIONS
>> - *        Only supports 64bit systems and kernel 2.6.33 or above
>> + * Only supports 64bit systems and kernel 2.6.33 or above.
> nit: Maybe: Only 64bit systems are supported.
> 
> I'm not a native speaker, but "Only supports" sounds wrong to me.
> Also although I'd keep .min_kver, mentioning it is IMHO necessary -
> why to repeat info we have in .tags? We still do that, but IMHO we should
> stop doing it. And this ancient version is certainly not worth duplicity
> (latest tested kernel is 3.10 [1]).
+1

> 
> sendfile09.c:58: WARNING: Missing a blank line after declarations
> sendfile09.c:75: WARNING: Missing a blank line after declarations
> sendfile09.c:80: WARNING: Comparisons should place the constant on the right side of the test
> sendfile09.c:82: WARNING: quoted string split across lines
> sendfile09.c:86: WARNING: quoted string split across lines
> sendfile09.c:90: WARNING: quoted string split across lines
> 
>>    */
>> -#include <stdio.h>
>> -#include <errno.h>
>> +
>>   #include <fcntl.h>
>>   #include <sys/stat.h>
>>   #include <sys/sendfile.h>
>>   #include <sys/types.h>
>>   #include <unistd.h>
>>   #include <inttypes.h>
> Again, only these are needed:
> 
> #include <inttypes.h>
> #include <sys/sendfile.h>
> 
> #include "tst_test.h"
> #include "lapi/abisize.h"
+1

> 
>> -static void cleanup(void);
>> -static void setup(void);
>> +#ifndef OFF_T
>> +#define OFF_T off_t
>> +#endif
> I wonder where OFF_T comes from and if we can just simply use off_t.
Not sure about this.

> 
>> -#define ONE_GB (INT64_C(1) << 30)
>> +#define ONE_GB		(INT64_C(1) << 30)
>> +#define IN_FILE		"in_file"
>> +#define OUT_FILE	"out_file"
> 
> :...
>> +static void setup(void)
>>   {
>> -	int i;
>> -
>> -	tst_sig(FORK, DEF_HANDLER, cleanup);
>> -	TEST_PAUSE;
>> -
>> -	/* make a temporary directory and cd to it */
>> -	tst_tmpdir();
>> -
>> -	if (!tst_fs_has_free(NULL, ".", 5, TST_GB))
>> -		tst_brkm(TCONF, cleanup, "sendfile(2) on large file"
>> -			" needs 5G free space.");
>> +	if (!tst_fs_has_free(".", 5, TST_GB))
>> +		tst_brk(TCONF, "Test on large file needs 5G free space");
> 
>> -	/* create a 4G file */
>> -	fd = SAFE_CREAT(cleanup, in_file, 00700);
>> -	for (i = 1; i <= (4 * 1024); i++) {
>> -		SAFE_LSEEK(cleanup, fd, 1024 * 1024 - 1, SEEK_CUR);
>> -		SAFE_WRITE(cleanup, 1, fd, "C", 1);
>> +	int fd = SAFE_CREAT(IN_FILE, 00700);
>> +	for (int i = 1; i <= (4 * 1024); ++i) {
> This will lead to error in old compilers:
> error: 'for' loop initial declarations are only allowed in C99 mode
> https://travis-ci.org/github/pevik/ltp/jobs/771837120
> https://travis-ci.org/github/pevik/ltp/jobs/771837126
> 
> It must be:
> 
> int i;
> 
> ...
> for (i = 1; i <= (4 * 1024); ++i) {
> 
> Thus probably better to declare fd before as well.
> 
> int i, fd;
I'll pay attention next time. Thanks.

> 
> ...
>> +static void run(unsigned int i)
>>   {
> ...
>> +	off_t before_pos, after_pos;
>> +	before_pos = SAFE_LSEEK(in_fd, 0, SEEK_CUR);
>> +
>> +	TEST(sendfile(out_fd, in_fd, &offset, tc[i].count));
>> +	after_pos = SAFE_LSEEK(in_fd, 0, SEEK_CUR);
>> +
>> +	if (TST_RET != tc[i].exp_retval)
>> +		tst_res(TFAIL, "sendfile(2) failed to return expected value, "
>> +			       "expected: %" PRId64 ", got: %ld",
>> +			tc[i].exp_retval, TST_RET);
>> +	else if (offset != tc[i].exp_updated_offset)
>> +		tst_res(TFAIL, "sendfile(2) failed to update OFFSET parameter to "
>> +			       "expected value, expected: %" PRId64 ", got: %" PRId64,
>> +			tc[i].exp_updated_offset, (int64_t)(offset));
>> +	else if (before_pos != after_pos)
>> +		tst_res(TFAIL, "sendfile(2) updated the file position of in_fd "
>> +			       "unexpectedly, expected file position: %" PRId64
>> +			       ", actual file position %" PRId64,
>> +			(int64_t)(before_pos), (int64_t)(after_pos));
> Yes, we probably cannot avoid splitting string here, unless TST_EXP_FAIL() can
> be used here.
> 
> I'd avoid 2 in "sendfile(2).
+1

> 
>> +	else
>> +		tst_res(TPASS, "sendfile(2) with %s", tc[i].desc);
> 
> Again, minor things, I can fix them before merge.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Petr
> .
> 

Hi, Petr,

Not sure whether to remove OFF_T, the other modifications worked fine 
for me.

Thanks for your review.

Kind regards,
Ziyao