Hi!
On 2015/08/06 22:43, Cyril Hrubis wrote:
> Hi!
>> +/*
>> + * MIN_TIME_LIMIT is defined to 5 senconds as a minimal acceptable
>> + * amount of time for the lease breaker waitting for unblock, if the
>> + * lease breaker is unblocked within MIN_TIME_LIMIT we may consider
>> + * that the feature of the lease mechanism works well.
>> + */
>> +#define MIN_TIME_LIMIT 5
>> +
>> +#define OP_OPEN_RDONLY 0
>> +#define OP_OPEN_WRONLY 1
>> +#define OP_OPEN_RDWR 2
>> +#define OP_TRUNCATE 3
>> +
>> +#define FILE_MODE (S_IRWXU | S_IRWXG | S_IRWXO | S_ISUID | S_ISGID)
>> +#define PATH_LS_BRK_T "/proc/sys/fs/lease-break-time"
>> +
>> +static void setup(void);
>> +static void do_test(int);
>> +static int do_child(int);
>> +static void sighandler(int);
>> +static void cleanup(void);
>> +
>> +static int fd;
>> +static int ls_brk_t;
>> +static volatile int lease;
>> +
>> +static struct test_case_t {
>> + int lease_type;
>> + int op_type;
>> + char *string;
> ^
> This is nice example how we shouldn't name variables.
>
> What about 'desc' or something that actually says more about
> what is the string used for?
>
I see, I will name variables reasonably, thanks!
>> +} test_cases[] = {
>> + {F_WRLCK, OP_OPEN_RDONLY, "open() O_RDONLY conflicts with F_WRLCK"},
>> + {F_WRLCK, OP_OPEN_WRONLY, "open() O_WRONLY conflicts with F_WRLCK"},
>> + {F_WRLCK, OP_OPEN_RDWR, "open() O_RDWR conflicts with F_WRLCK"},
>> + {F_WRLCK, OP_TRUNCATE, "truncate() conflicts with F_WRLCK"},
>> + {F_RDLCK, OP_OPEN_WRONLY, "open() O_WRONLY conflicts with O_RDLCK"},
>> + {F_RDLCK, OP_OPEN_RDWR, "open() O_RDWR conflicts with O_RDLCK"},
>> + {F_RDLCK, OP_TRUNCATE, "truncate() conflicts with F_RDLCK"},
>> +};
>> +
>> +char *TCID = "fcntl33";
>> +int TST_TOTAL = ARRAY_SIZE(test_cases);
>> +
>> +int main(int ac, char **av)
>> +{
>> + int lc;
>> + int tc;
>> + long type;
>> +
>> + tst_parse_opts(ac, av, NULL, NULL);
>> +
>> + setup();
>> +
>> + switch ((type = tst_fs_type(cleanup, "."))) {
>> + case TST_NFS_MAGIC:
>> + case TST_RAMFS_MAGIC:
>> + case TST_TMPFS_MAGIC:
>> + tst_brkm(TCONF, cleanup,
>> + "Cannot do fcntl on a file on %s filesystem",
>
> Here as well, please include what kind of fcntl these do not support.
>
OK, got it.
>> + tst_fs_type_name(type));
>> + break;
>
> No need for the break here as tst_brkm() does not return (calls exit()).
>
OK, I will remove the break here as well as the one in fcntl32.c, thanks.
>> + default:
>> + break;
>> + }
>> +
>> + for (lc = 0; TEST_LOOPING(lc); lc++) {
>> + tst_count = 0;
>> +
>> + for (tc = 0; tc < TST_TOTAL; tc++)
>> + do_test(tc);
>> + }
>> +
>> + cleanup();
>> + tst_exit();
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void setup(void)
>> +{
>> + tst_sig(FORK, DEF_HANDLER, cleanup);
>> +
>> + /* Backup the lease-break-time. */
>> + SAFE_FILE_SCANF(NULL, PATH_LS_BRK_T, "%d", &ls_brk_t);
>> + SAFE_FILE_PRINTF(NULL, PATH_LS_BRK_T, "%d", 45);
>> +
>> + tst_tmpdir();
>> +
>> + TST_CHECKPOINT_INIT(tst_rmdir);
>> +
>> + SAFE_TOUCH(cleanup, "file", FILE_MODE, NULL);
>> +
>> + TEST_PAUSE;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void do_test(int i)
>> +{
>> + pid_t cpid;
>> +
>> + cpid = FORK_OR_VFORK();
>
> Never use FORK_OR_VFORK() in testcases that are not ported to uclinux.
> You should use tst_fork() instead.
>
OK, got it, thanks.
>> + if (cpid < 0)
>> + tst_brkm(TBROK | TERRNO, cleanup, "fork(2) failed");
>> +
>> + if (cpid == 0)
>> + do_child(i);
>> +
>> + fd = SAFE_OPEN(cleanup, "file", O_RDONLY);
>> +
>> + lease = test_cases[i].lease_type;
>> +
>> + TEST(fcntl(fd, F_SETLEASE, lease));
>> + if (TEST_RETURN == -1) {
>> + tst_resm(TFAIL | TTERRNO, "fcntl(2) failed to set lease");
>> + SAFE_WAITPID(cleanup, cpid, NULL, 0);
>> + SAFE_CLOSE(cleanup, fd);
>> + fd = 0;
>> + return;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (signal(SIGIO, sighandler) == SIG_ERR)
>> + tst_brkm(TBROK | TERRNO, cleanup, "signal(2) failed");
>
> Why don't we set up the signal handler once in the setup?
>
Yes, that is better.
I will set up the signal handler there, thanks.
>> + TST_SAFE_CHECKPOINT_WAKE(cleanup, 0);
>> +
>> + tst_record_childstatus(cleanup, cpid);
>> +
>> + SAFE_CLOSE(cleanup, fd);
>> + fd = 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int do_child(int i)
>> +{
>> + time_t time_start, time_end;
>> +
>> + TST_SAFE_CHECKPOINT_WAIT(NULL, 0);
>> +
>> + if (time(&time_start) == -1) {
>> + tst_brkm(TBROK | TERRNO, NULL,
>> + "getting start time failed");
>> + }
>
> Using time() for measuring elapsed time is wrong for several reasons.
>
> We have timer functions in LTP library (which are documented in
> test-writing-guidelines.txt). Use them.
>
OK, I will check and use them instead, thanks.
>> + switch (test_cases[i].op_type) {
>> + case OP_OPEN_RDONLY:
>> + SAFE_OPEN(NULL, "file", O_RDONLY);
>> + break;
>> + case OP_OPEN_WRONLY:
>> + SAFE_OPEN(NULL, "file", O_WRONLY);
>> + break;
>> + case OP_OPEN_RDWR:
>> + SAFE_OPEN(NULL, "file", O_RDWR);
>> + break;
>> + case OP_TRUNCATE:
>> + SAFE_TRUNCATE(NULL, "file", 0);
>> + break;
>> + default:
>> + break;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (time(&time_end) == -1) {
>> + tst_brkm(TBROK | TERRNO, NULL,
>> + "getting end time failed");
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (difftime(time_end, time_start) < MIN_TIME_LIMIT) {
>> + tst_resm(TPASS, "fcntl(2) lease passed, "
>> + "test type: %s", test_cases[i].string);
>> + } else {
>> + tst_resm(TFAIL, "unblocking took too long time, "
>> + "test type: %s", test_cases[i].string);
>> + }
>> +
>> + tst_exit();
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void sighandler(int sig)
>> +{
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + if (sig != SIGIO) {
>> + ret = write(STDOUT_FILENO, "get wrong signal\n",
>> + sizeof("get wrong signal\n"));
>> + } else {
>> + switch (lease) {
>> + case F_WRLCK:
>> + TEST(fcntl(fd, F_SETLEASE, F_RDLCK));
>> + if (TEST_RETURN == 0)
>> + break;
>> + case F_RDLCK:
>> + TEST(fcntl(fd, F_SETLEASE, F_UNLCK));
>> + if (TEST_RETURN == -1) {
>> + ret = write(STDOUT_FILENO,
>> + "fcntl(2) failed\n",
>> + sizeof("fcntl(2) failed\n"));
>> + }
>> + break;
>> + default:
>> + break;
>> + }
>
> I do not like that we do the unlocking here in signal handler. It should
> be done in parent process and we should fail the test properly if this
> fails.
>
> What about doing sigtimedwait() in parent with suitable timeout instead?
>
OK,I will use sigtimedwait() instead, thanks.
>> + }
>> +
>> + (void)ret;
>
> Why do we set the variable if it's not used at all?
>
Without the variable, compilation reports warning below,
warning: ignoring return value of 'write', declared with attribute
warn_unused_result
Actually I would like to remove the variable if it's OK to the warning.
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void cleanup(void)
>> +{
>> + if (fd > 0 && close(fd))
>> + tst_resm(TWARN | TTERRNO, "failed to close file");
>> +
>> + tst_rmdir();
>> +
>> + /* Restore the lease-break-time. */
>> + FILE_PRINTF(PATH_LS_BRK_T, "%d", ls_brk_t);
>> +}
>> --
>> 1.8.4.2
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ltp-list mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
