fcntl14: dup code clean up

PATCH In review Xiong Zhou 2 participants 11 messages Sep 11, 2014 – Sep 29, 2014 1 message not in the archive

lore

Share & tools

lore

A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]

Xiong Zhou

author

2014-09-11 10:30 UTC #1 lore raw

PATCH 1/3 fcntl14: dup code clean up

And block3 description message fix from "mandatory locking" to "negative whence".

Signed-off-by Xiong Zhou <[email protected]>

---
 testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c | 36 +++++++++++--------------------
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)

testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c +13 ~~-23~~

index 30a1ea9..9db88e8 100644
@@ -969,6 +969,15 @@ void catch1(int sig)
 	got1++;
 }
 
+static void testcheck_end(int check_fail, char *msg)
+{
+	if (check_fail) {
+		tst_resm(TFAIL, "%s FAILED", msg);
+	} else {
+		tst_resm(TPASS, "%s PASSED", msg);
+	}
+}
+
 int main(int ac, char **av)
 {
 	int lc;

@@ -1009,20 +1018,11 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
 		 * mandatory locking
 		 */
 		(void)run_test(O_CREAT | O_RDWR | O_TRUNC, 0777, 0, 0, 36);
-		if (fail) {
-			tst_resm(TFAIL, "Block 1, test 1 FAILED");
-		} else {
-			tst_resm(TPASS, "Block 1, test 1 PASSED");
-		}
+		testcheck_end(fail, "Block 1, test 1");
 
 		/* Now try with negative values for L_start and L_len */
 		(void)run_test(O_CREAT | O_RDWR | O_TRUNC, 0777, 5, 36, 45);
-
-		if (fail) {
-			tst_resm(TFAIL, "Block 1, test 2 FAILED");
-		} else {
-			tst_resm(TPASS, "Block 1, test 2 PASSED");
-		}
+		testcheck_end(fail, "Block 1, test 2");
 
 		tst_resm(TINFO, "Exit block 1");

@@ -1094,13 +1094,7 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
 		close(fd);
 		unlink(tmpname);
 
-		if (fail) {
-			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test with mandatory "
-				 "locking FAILED");
-		} else {
-			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test with mandatory "
-				 "locking PASSED");
-		}
+		testcheck_end(fail, "Test with negative whence locking");
 		tst_resm(TINFO, "Exit block 3");
 
 /* //block4: */

@@ -1223,11 +1217,7 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
 		close(fd);
 		unlink(tmpname);
 
-		if (fail) {
-			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test of locks on file FAILED");
-		} else {
-			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test of locks on file PASSED");
-		}
+		testcheck_end(fail, "Test of locks on file");
 		tst_resm(TINFO, "Exit block 4");
 	}
 	cleanup();

Signature · 13 lines

1.8.3.1


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want excitement?
Manually upgrade your production database.
When you want reliability, choose Perforce
Perforce version control. Predictably reliable.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list

Stanislav Kholmanskikh

2014-09-11 14:04 UTC #2 lore raw

Hi!

Quoted 14 lines · Xiong Zhou

And block3 description message fix from "mandatory locking" to "negative whence".
Signed-off-by Xiong Zhou <[email protected]>
---
  testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c | 36 +++++++++++--------------------
  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c +0 -0
index 30a1ea9..9db88e8 100644
@@ -969,6 +969,15 @@ void catch1(int sig)
  	got1++;

testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c void catch1(int sig) · line 979

Quoted 10 lines

testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c +8 -0

  }
 
+static void testcheck_end(int check_fail, char *msg)
+{
+	if (check_fail) {
+		tst_resm(TFAIL, "%s FAILED", msg);
+	} else {
+		tst_resm(TPASS, "%s PASSED", msg);
+	}
+}

There are many places left in fcntl14.c where you can put this "deduplication". Why aren't you doing it? ;)

Quoted 46 lines

testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c +4 ~~-18~~

+
  int main(int ac, char **av)
  {
  	int lc;

@@ -1009,20 +1018,11 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
  		 * mandatory locking
  		 */
  		(void)run_test(O_CREAT | O_RDWR | O_TRUNC, 0777, 0, 0, 36);
-		if (fail) {
-			tst_resm(TFAIL, "Block 1, test 1 FAILED");
-		} else {
-			tst_resm(TPASS, "Block 1, test 1 PASSED");
-		}
+		testcheck_end(fail, "Block 1, test 1");
 
  		/* Now try with negative values for L_start and L_len */
  		(void)run_test(O_CREAT | O_RDWR | O_TRUNC, 0777, 5, 36, 45);
-
-		if (fail) {
-			tst_resm(TFAIL, "Block 1, test 2 FAILED");
-		} else {
-			tst_resm(TPASS, "Block 1, test 2 PASSED");
-		}
+		testcheck_end(fail, "Block 1, test 2");
 
  		tst_resm(TINFO, "Exit block 1");

@@ -1094,13 +1094,7 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
  		close(fd);
  		unlink(tmpname);
 
-		if (fail) {
-			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test with mandatory "
-				 "locking FAILED");
-		} else {
-			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test with mandatory "
-				 "locking PASSED");
-		}
+		testcheck_end(fail, "Test with negative whence locking");
  		tst_resm(TINFO, "Exit block 3");
 
  /* //block4: */

@@ -1223,11 +1217,7 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
  		close(fd);
  		unlink(tmpname);

testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c int main(int ac, char **av) · line 1223

Quoted 10 lines

testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c +1 -5

 
-		if (fail) {
-			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test of locks on file FAILED");
-		} else {
-			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test of locks on file PASSED");
-		}
+		testcheck_end(fail, "Test of locks on file");
  		tst_resm(TINFO, "Exit block 4");
  	}
  	cleanup();

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want excitement?
Manually upgrade your production database.
When you want reliability, choose Perforce
Perforce version control. Predictably reliable.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list

Xiong Zhou

author

2014-09-19 06:47 UTC #3 lore raw

----- Original Message -----

Quoted 26 lines

From: "Stanislav Kholmanskikh" <[email protected]>
To: "Xiong Zhou" <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 10:04:32 PM
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 1/3] fcntl14: dup code clean up
Hi!
Quoted 18 lines · Xiong Zhou
And block3 description message fix from "mandatory locking" to "negative whence".
Signed-off-by Xiong Zhou <[email protected]>
---
  testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c | 36
  +++++++++++--------------------
  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c +0 -0
index 30a1ea9..9db88e8 100644
@@ -969,6 +969,15 @@ void catch1(int sig)
  	got1++;
  }
 

Quoted 11 lines

testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c void catch1(int sig) · line 979
Quoted 8 lines
testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c +8 -0
+static void testcheck_end(int check_fail, char *msg)
+{
+	if (check_fail) {
+		tst_resm(TFAIL, "%s FAILED", msg);
+	} else {
+		tst_resm(TPASS, "%s PASSED", msg);
+	}
+}
There are many places left in fcntl14.c where you can put this "deduplication". Why aren't you doing it? ;)

I think I have done all of them, I cannot find other places which are applicable to this function.

I will resend this series based on your last comments.

Thanks.

Quoted 47 lines

testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c +4 ~~-18~~

+
  int main(int ac, char **av)
  {
  	int lc;

@@ -1009,20 +1018,11 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
  		 * mandatory locking
  		 */
  		(void)run_test(O_CREAT | O_RDWR | O_TRUNC, 0777, 0, 0, 36);
-		if (fail) {
-			tst_resm(TFAIL, "Block 1, test 1 FAILED");
-		} else {
-			tst_resm(TPASS, "Block 1, test 1 PASSED");
-		}
+		testcheck_end(fail, "Block 1, test 1");
 
  		/* Now try with negative values for L_start and L_len */
  		(void)run_test(O_CREAT | O_RDWR | O_TRUNC, 0777, 5, 36, 45);
-
-		if (fail) {
-			tst_resm(TFAIL, "Block 1, test 2 FAILED");
-		} else {
-			tst_resm(TPASS, "Block 1, test 2 PASSED");
-		}
+		testcheck_end(fail, "Block 1, test 2");
 
  		tst_resm(TINFO, "Exit block 1");

@@ -1094,13 +1094,7 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
  		close(fd);
  		unlink(tmpname);
 
-		if (fail) {
-			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test with mandatory "
-				 "locking FAILED");
-		} else {
-			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test with mandatory "
-				 "locking PASSED");
-		}
+		testcheck_end(fail, "Test with negative whence locking");
  		tst_resm(TINFO, "Exit block 3");
 
  /* //block4: */

@@ -1223,11 +1217,7 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
  		close(fd);
  		unlink(tmpname);

Quoted 11 lines

testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c int main(int ac, char **av) · line 1223
Quoted 10 lines
testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c +1 -5
-		if (fail) {
-			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test of locks on file FAILED");
-		} else {
-			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test of locks on file PASSED");
-		}
+		testcheck_end(fail, "Test of locks on file");
  		tst_resm(TINFO, "Exit block 4");
  	}
  	cleanup();

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that Matters.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=160591471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list

Stanislav Kholmanskikh

2014-09-23 11:53 UTC #4 lore raw

Hi!

Quoted 41 lines · Xiong Zhou

----- Original Message -----
Quoted 26 lines
From: "Stanislav Kholmanskikh" <[email protected]>
To: "Xiong Zhou" <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 10:04:32 PM
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 1/3] fcntl14: dup code clean up
Hi!
Quoted 18 lines · Xiong Zhou
And block3 description message fix from "mandatory locking" to "negative whence".
Signed-off-by Xiong Zhou <[email protected]>
---
   testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c | 36
   +++++++++++--------------------
   1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c +0 -0
index 30a1ea9..9db88e8 100644
@@ -969,6 +969,15 @@ void catch1(int sig)
   	got1++;
   }
 
Quoted 11 lines
testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c void catch1(int sig) · line 979
Quoted 8 lines
testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c +8 -0
+static void testcheck_end(int check_fail, char *msg)
+{
+	if (check_fail) {
+		tst_resm(TFAIL, "%s FAILED", msg);
+	} else {
+		tst_resm(TPASS, "%s PASSED", msg);
+	}
+}
There are many places left in fcntl14.c where you can put this "deduplication". Why aren't you doing it? ;)

Quoted 1 line

I think I have done all of them, I cannot find other places which are applicable to this function.

Sorry, but by "many places" I meant block 2.

Last time I commented your [PATCH 2/3] with "And testcheck_end() to block 2 should be introduced in the previous patch."

Could you please add all testcheck_end() invocations in the first patch of the series?

Thanks.

Quoted 63 lines

I will resend this series based on your last comments.

Thanks.

Quoted 58 lines

Quoted 57 lines

testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c +5 ~~-23~~

+
   int main(int ac, char **av)
   {
   	int lc;

@@ -1009,20 +1018,11 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
   		 * mandatory locking
   		 */
   		(void)run_test(O_CREAT | O_RDWR | O_TRUNC, 0777, 0, 0, 36);
-		if (fail) {
-			tst_resm(TFAIL, "Block 1, test 1 FAILED");
-		} else {
-			tst_resm(TPASS, "Block 1, test 1 PASSED");
-		}
+		testcheck_end(fail, "Block 1, test 1");
 
   		/* Now try with negative values for L_start and L_len */
   		(void)run_test(O_CREAT | O_RDWR | O_TRUNC, 0777, 5, 36, 45);
-
-		if (fail) {
-			tst_resm(TFAIL, "Block 1, test 2 FAILED");
-		} else {
-			tst_resm(TPASS, "Block 1, test 2 PASSED");
-		}
+		testcheck_end(fail, "Block 1, test 2");
 
   		tst_resm(TINFO, "Exit block 1");

@@ -1094,13 +1094,7 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
   		close(fd);
   		unlink(tmpname);
 
-		if (fail) {
-			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test with mandatory "
-				 "locking FAILED");
-		} else {
-			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test with mandatory "
-				 "locking PASSED");
-		}
+		testcheck_end(fail, "Test with negative whence locking");
   		tst_resm(TINFO, "Exit block 3");
 
   /* //block4: */

@@ -1223,11 +1217,7 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
   		close(fd);
   		unlink(tmpname);
 
-		if (fail) {
-			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test of locks on file FAILED");
-		} else {
-			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test of locks on file PASSED");
-		}
+		testcheck_end(fail, "Test of locks on file");
   		tst_resm(TINFO, "Exit block 4");
   	}
   	cleanup();

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=154622311&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list

Xiong Zhou

author

2014-09-19 06:47 UTC #5 lore raw

PATCH v2 1/3 fcntl14: dup code clean up

In reply to Stanislav Kholmanskikh

And block3 description message fix from "mandatory locking" to "negative whence".

Signed-off-by Xiong Zhou <[email protected]>

---
 testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c | 36 +++++++++++--------------------
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)

testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c +13 ~~-23~~

index 30a1ea9..9db88e8 100644
@@ -969,6 +969,15 @@ void catch1(int sig)
 	got1++;
 }
 
+static void testcheck_end(int check_fail, char *msg)
+{
+	if (check_fail) {
+		tst_resm(TFAIL, "%s FAILED", msg);
+	} else {
+		tst_resm(TPASS, "%s PASSED", msg);
+	}
+}
+
 int main(int ac, char **av)
 {
 	int lc;

@@ -1009,20 +1018,11 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
 		 * mandatory locking
 		 */
 		(void)run_test(O_CREAT | O_RDWR | O_TRUNC, 0777, 0, 0, 36);
-		if (fail) {
-			tst_resm(TFAIL, "Block 1, test 1 FAILED");
-		} else {
-			tst_resm(TPASS, "Block 1, test 1 PASSED");
-		}
+		testcheck_end(fail, "Block 1, test 1");
 
 		/* Now try with negative values for L_start and L_len */
 		(void)run_test(O_CREAT | O_RDWR | O_TRUNC, 0777, 5, 36, 45);
-
-		if (fail) {
-			tst_resm(TFAIL, "Block 1, test 2 FAILED");
-		} else {
-			tst_resm(TPASS, "Block 1, test 2 PASSED");
-		}
+		testcheck_end(fail, "Block 1, test 2");
 
 		tst_resm(TINFO, "Exit block 1");

@@ -1094,13 +1094,7 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
 		close(fd);
 		unlink(tmpname);
 
-		if (fail) {
-			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test with mandatory "
-				 "locking FAILED");
-		} else {
-			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test with mandatory "
-				 "locking PASSED");
-		}
+		testcheck_end(fail, "Test with negative whence locking");
 		tst_resm(TINFO, "Exit block 3");
 
 /* //block4: */

@@ -1223,11 +1217,7 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
 		close(fd);
 		unlink(tmpname);
 
-		if (fail) {
-			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test of locks on file FAILED");
-		} else {
-			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test of locks on file PASSED");
-		}
+		testcheck_end(fail, "Test of locks on file");
 		tst_resm(TINFO, "Exit block 4");
 	}
 	cleanup();

Signature · 10 lines

1.8.3.1


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.  Video for Nerds.  Stuff that Matters.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=160591471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list

Xiong Zhou

author

2014-09-25 07:18 UTC #6 lore raw

PATCH v3 1/3 fcntl14: dup code clean up

And block3 description message fix from "mandatory locking" to "negative whence".

Signed-off-by Xiong Zhou <[email protected]>

---
 testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c | 48 ++++++++++---------------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)

testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c +15 ~~-33~~

index 30a1ea9..b110d35 100644
@@ -969,6 +969,15 @@ void catch1(int sig)
 	got1++;
 }
 
+static void testcheck_end(int check_fail, char *msg)
+{
+	if (check_fail) {
+		tst_resm(TFAIL, "%s FAILED", msg);
+	} else {
+		tst_resm(TPASS, "%s PASSED", msg);
+	}
+}
+
 int main(int ac, char **av)
 {
 	int lc;

@@ -1009,20 +1018,11 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
 		 * mandatory locking
 		 */
 		(void)run_test(O_CREAT | O_RDWR | O_TRUNC, 0777, 0, 0, 36);
-		if (fail) {
-			tst_resm(TFAIL, "Block 1, test 1 FAILED");
-		} else {
-			tst_resm(TPASS, "Block 1, test 1 PASSED");
-		}
+		testcheck_end(fail, "Block 1, test 1");
 
 		/* Now try with negative values for L_start and L_len */
 		(void)run_test(O_CREAT | O_RDWR | O_TRUNC, 0777, 5, 36, 45);
-
-		if (fail) {
-			tst_resm(TFAIL, "Block 1, test 2 FAILED");
-		} else {
-			tst_resm(TPASS, "Block 1, test 2 PASSED");
-		}
+		testcheck_end(fail, "Block 1, test 2");
 
 		tst_resm(TINFO, "Exit block 1");

@@ -1035,20 +1035,12 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
 		 */
 		(void)run_test(O_CREAT | O_RDWR | O_TRUNC, S_ENFMT | S_IRUSR |
 			       S_IWUSR, 0, 0, 36);
-		if (fail) {
-			tst_resm(TFAIL, "Block 2, test 1 FAILED");
-		} else {
-			tst_resm(TPASS, "Block 2, test 1 PASSED");
-		}
+		testcheck_end(fail, "Block 2, test 1");
 
 		/* Now try negative values for L_start and L_len */
 		(void)run_test(O_CREAT | O_RDWR | O_TRUNC, S_ENFMT | S_IRUSR |
 			       S_IWUSR, 5, 36, 45);
-		if (fail) {
-			tst_resm(TFAIL, "Block 2, test 2 FAILED");
-		} else {
-			tst_resm(TPASS, "Block 2, test 2 PASSED");
-		}
+		testcheck_end(fail, "Block 2, test 2");
 
 		tst_resm(TINFO, "Exit block 2");

@@ -1094,13 +1086,7 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
 		close(fd);
 		unlink(tmpname);
 
-		if (fail) {
-			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test with mandatory "
-				 "locking FAILED");
-		} else {
-			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test with mandatory "
-				 "locking PASSED");
-		}
+		testcheck_end(fail, "Test with negative whence locking");
 		tst_resm(TINFO, "Exit block 3");
 
 /* //block4: */

@@ -1223,11 +1209,7 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
 		close(fd);
 		unlink(tmpname);
 
-		if (fail) {
-			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test of locks on file FAILED");
-		} else {
-			tst_resm(TINFO, "Test of locks on file PASSED");
-		}
+		testcheck_end(fail, "Test of locks on file");
 		tst_resm(TINFO, "Exit block 4");
 	}
 	cleanup();

Signature · 13 lines

1.8.3.1


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer
Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports
Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper
Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=154622311&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list

Stanislav Kholmanskikh

2014-09-25 12:07 UTC #7 lore raw

Hi!

Quoted 6 lines · Xiong Zhou

And block3 description message fix from "mandatory locking" to "negative whence".
Signed-off-by Xiong Zhou <[email protected]>
---

Patch 1 and patch 2 of the series are pushed.
Btw, patch 2 didn't apply to index correctly with 'git am', I had to manually apply it.

I'm experiencing difficulties with checking patch 3. In particular, after applying your patch utime02 fails on NFSv4 with 2.6.32-431.29.2.el6.x86_64 kernel.

I'm not quite sure if it's a kernel problem or test case error. Still investigating.

Could you please check the test case in your RHEL 6 environment as well?

Thank you.

Xiong Zhou

author

2014-09-26 03:23 UTC #8 lore raw

----- Original Message -----

Quoted 13 lines

From: "Stanislav Kholmanskikh" <[email protected]>
To: "Xiong Zhou" <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 8:07:26 PM
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH v3 1/3] fcntl14: dup code clean up
Hi!
Quoted 4 lines · Xiong Zhou
And block3 description message fix from "mandatory locking" to "negative whence".

Quoted 7 lines

Quoted 2 lines
Signed-off-by Xiong Zhou <[email protected]>
---
Patch 1 and patch 2 of the series are pushed.
Btw, patch 2 didn't apply to index correctly with 'git am', I had to manually apply it.

Sorry for the inconvenience.. I should keep my master branch updated.

Quoted 3 lines

I'm experiencing difficulties with checking patch 3. In particular, after applying your patch utime02 fails on NFSv4 with 2.6.32-431.29.2.el6.x86_64 kernel.

Yes, I got the same results on 2.6.32-431.29.2.el6 kernel, v3 pass v4 fail.

Quoted 5 lines

I'm not quite sure if it's a kernel problem or test case error. Still investigating.
Could you please check the test case in your RHEL 6 environment as well?

I double checked that utime02 did pass on upstream 2.6.32 kernel both NFSv3 and NFSv4 in my env.
On latest RHEL-6 kernel, both NFSv3 and NFSv4 passed utime02 test case.

All failed test_output are just like:
tst_tmpdir.c:158: chown(/nfsmnt/ltp-6L6Oqow6wv/utiMPq3y5, -1, 0) \
failed: errno=EPERM(1): Operation not permitted

One single clean chown(nfsfile, -1, 0) call to NFSv3/4 file succeeds on multiple kernels include 2.6.32-431.29.2.el6.

Neither, I'm not sure about where the problem lies. Still checking.

Thanks for catching this!

--
xzhou

Quoted 3 lines

Thank you.

Stanislav Kholmanskikh

2014-09-26 12:36 UTC #9 lore raw

Hi!

Quoted 38 lines · Xiong Zhou

----- Original Message -----
Quoted 13 lines
From: "Stanislav Kholmanskikh" <[email protected]>
To: "Xiong Zhou" <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 8:07:26 PM
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH v3 1/3] fcntl14: dup code clean up
Hi!
Quoted 4 lines · Xiong Zhou
And block3 description message fix from "mandatory locking" to "negative whence".
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Signed-off-by Xiong Zhou <[email protected]>
---
Patch 1 and patch 2 of the series are pushed.
Btw, patch 2 didn't apply to index correctly with 'git am', I had to manually apply it.
Sorry for the inconvenience.. I should keep my master branch updated.
Quoted 3 lines
I'm experiencing difficulties with checking patch 3. In particular, after applying your patch utime02 fails on NFSv4 with 2.6.32-431.29.2.el6.x86_64 kernel.
Yes, I got the same results on 2.6.32-431.29.2.el6 kernel, v3 pass v4 fail.
Quoted 5 lines
I'm not quite sure if it's a kernel problem or test case error. Still investigating.
Could you please check the test case in your RHEL 6 environment as well?

Quoted 7 lines

I double checked that utime02 did pass on upstream 2.6.32 kernel both NFSv3 and NFSv4 in my env.
On latest RHEL-6 kernel, both NFSv3 and NFSv4 passed utime02 test case.
All failed test_output are just like:
tst_tmpdir.c:158: chown(/nfsmnt/ltp-6L6Oqow6wv/utiMPq3y5, -1, 0) \
failed: errno=EPERM(1): Operation not permitted

Sorry, I didn't get whether utime02+NFSv4 passed with the latest RHEL-6 kernel. Could you elaborate on this?

Quoted 5 lines

One single clean chown(nfsfile, -1, 0) call to NFSv3/4 file succeeds on multiple kernels include 2.6.32-431.29.2.el6.
Neither, I'm not sure about where the problem lies. Still checking.

test.c:

#include <error.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <sys/stat.h>
#include <sys/types.h>

int main(void)

{
	if (setuid(99)) {
		perror("setuid() failed");
		goto out;
	}

	if (mkdir("dir", 0700)) {
		perror("mkdir() failed");
		goto out;
	}

	if (chown("dir", -1, 0))
		perror("chown() failed");

out:

	return 0;
}

99 is 'nobody'.

With both upstream 2.6.32 and 2.6.32.63 strace ./test on a nfsv4 fs will show:

setuid(99)                              = 0
mkdir("dir", 0700)                      = 0
chown("dir", 4294967295, 0)             = 0

[root@ol6-x64 nfsv4]# ls -ld dir
drwx------ 2 nobody root 4096 Sep 26 13:14 dir

But with 2.6.32-431.29.2.el6.x86_64:

setuid(99)                              = 0
mkdir("dir", 0700)                      = 0
chown("dir", 4294967295, 0)             = -1 EPERM (Operation not permitted)

[root@ol6-x64 nfsv4]# ls -ld dir
drwx------ 2 nobody root 4096 Sep 26 13:19 dir

So, most likely, it's a bug in the vendor kernels.

So on I think that your patch may be pushed.

If there are no objections, I would like to do it on Monday.

Thanks.

Quoted 9 lines

Thanks for catching this!
--
xzhou
Quoted 3 lines
Thank you.

Xiong Zhou

author

2014-09-28 02:54 UTC #10 lore raw

Hi!

----- Original Message -----

Quoted 51 lines

From: "Stanislav Kholmanskikh" <[email protected]>
To: "Xiong Zhou" <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 8:36:00 PM
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH v3 1/3] fcntl14: dup code clean up
Hi!
Quoted 42 lines · Xiong Zhou
----- Original Message -----
Quoted 13 lines
From: "Stanislav Kholmanskikh" <[email protected]>
To: "Xiong Zhou" <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 8:07:26 PM
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH v3 1/3] fcntl14: dup code clean up
Hi!
Quoted 4 lines · Xiong Zhou
And block3 description message fix from "mandatory locking" to "negative whence".
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Signed-off-by Xiong Zhou <[email protected]>
---
Patch 1 and patch 2 of the series are pushed.
Btw, patch 2 didn't apply to index correctly with 'git am', I had to manually apply it.
Sorry for the inconvenience.. I should keep my master branch updated.
Quoted 3 lines
I'm experiencing difficulties with checking patch 3. In particular, after applying your patch utime02 fails on NFSv4 with 2.6.32-431.29.2.el6.x86_64 kernel.
Yes, I got the same results on 2.6.32-431.29.2.el6 kernel, v3 pass v4 fail.
Quoted 5 lines
I'm not quite sure if it's a kernel problem or test case error. Still investigating.
Could you please check the test case in your RHEL 6 environment as well?
I double checked that utime02 did pass on upstream 2.6.32 kernel both NFSv3 and NFSv4 in my env.
On latest RHEL-6 kernel, both NFSv3 and NFSv4 passed utime02 test case.

Quoted 6 lines

Quoted 3 lines
All failed test_output are just like:
tst_tmpdir.c:158: chown(/nfsmnt/ltp-6L6Oqow6wv/utiMPq3y5, -1, 0) \
failed: errno=EPERM(1): Operation not permitted
Sorry, I didn't get whether utime02+NFSv4 passed with the latest RHEL-6 kernel. Could you elaborate on this?

Sorry for the confusion. The latest kernel I have tested on was an internal test temp build.

Quoted 45 lines

Quoted 6 lines
One single clean chown(nfsfile, -1, 0) call to NFSv3/4 file succeeds on multiple kernels include 2.6.32-431.29.2.el6.
Neither, I'm not sure about where the problem lies. Still checking.
test.c:
#include <error.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <sys/stat.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
int main(void)
{
	if (setuid(99)) {
		perror("setuid() failed");
		goto out;
	}

	if (mkdir("dir", 0700)) {
		perror("mkdir() failed");
		goto out;
	}

	if (chown("dir", -1, 0))
		perror("chown() failed");
out:
	return 0;
}
99 is 'nobody'.
With both upstream 2.6.32 and 2.6.32.63 strace ./test on a nfsv4 fs will show:
setuid(99)                              = 0
mkdir("dir", 0700)                      = 0
chown("dir", 4294967295, 0)             = 0
[root@ol6-x64 nfsv4]# ls -ld dir
drwx------ 2 nobody root 4096 Sep 26 13:14 dir
But with 2.6.32-431.29.2.el6.x86_64:

Quoted 8 lines

setuid(99)                              = 0
mkdir("dir", 0700)                      = 0
chown("dir", 4294967295, 0)             = -1 EPERM (Operation not permitted)
[root@ol6-x64 nfsv4]# ls -ld dir
drwx------ 2 nobody root 4096 Sep 26 13:19 dir
So, most likely, it's a bug in the vendor kernels.

I agree, and I think it has been recorded already.

Thanks!
--
xzhou

Quoted 17 lines

So on I think that your patch may be pushed.
If there are no objections, I would like to do it on Monday.
Thanks.
Quoted 9 lines
Thanks for catching this!
--
xzhou
Quoted 3 lines
Thank you.

Stanislav Kholmanskikh

2014-09-29 08:29 UTC #11 lore raw

Hi!

Patch 3 was pushed.

Thank you.

Quoted 116 lines · Xiong Zhou

Hi!
----- Original Message -----
Quoted 51 lines
From: "Stanislav Kholmanskikh" <[email protected]>
To: "Xiong Zhou" <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 8:36:00 PM
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH v3 1/3] fcntl14: dup code clean up
Hi!
Quoted 42 lines · Xiong Zhou
----- Original Message -----
Quoted 13 lines
From: "Stanislav Kholmanskikh" <[email protected]>
To: "Xiong Zhou" <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 8:07:26 PM
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH v3 1/3] fcntl14: dup code clean up
Hi!
Quoted 4 lines · Xiong Zhou
And block3 description message fix from "mandatory locking" to "negative whence".
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Signed-off-by Xiong Zhou <[email protected]>
---
Patch 1 and patch 2 of the series are pushed.
Btw, patch 2 didn't apply to index correctly with 'git am', I had to manually apply it.
Sorry for the inconvenience.. I should keep my master branch updated.
Quoted 3 lines
I'm experiencing difficulties with checking patch 3. In particular, after applying your patch utime02 fails on NFSv4 with 2.6.32-431.29.2.el6.x86_64 kernel.
Yes, I got the same results on 2.6.32-431.29.2.el6 kernel, v3 pass v4 fail.
Quoted 5 lines
I'm not quite sure if it's a kernel problem or test case error. Still investigating.
Could you please check the test case in your RHEL 6 environment as well?
I double checked that utime02 did pass on upstream 2.6.32 kernel both NFSv3 and NFSv4 in my env.
On latest RHEL-6 kernel, both NFSv3 and NFSv4 passed utime02 test case.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
All failed test_output are just like:
tst_tmpdir.c:158: chown(/nfsmnt/ltp-6L6Oqow6wv/utiMPq3y5, -1, 0) \
failed: errno=EPERM(1): Operation not permitted
Sorry, I didn't get whether utime02+NFSv4 passed with the latest RHEL-6 kernel. Could you elaborate on this?
Sorry for the confusion. The latest kernel I have tested on was an internal test temp build.
Quoted 52 lines
Quoted 6 lines
One single clean chown(nfsfile, -1, 0) call to NFSv3/4 file succeeds on multiple kernels include 2.6.32-431.29.2.el6.
Neither, I'm not sure about where the problem lies. Still checking.
test.c:
#include <error.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <sys/stat.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
int main(void)
{
	if (setuid(99)) {
		perror("setuid() failed");
		goto out;
	}

	if (mkdir("dir", 0700)) {
		perror("mkdir() failed");
		goto out;
	}

	if (chown("dir", -1, 0))
		perror("chown() failed");
out:
	return 0;
}
99 is 'nobody'.
With both upstream 2.6.32 and 2.6.32.63 strace ./test on a nfsv4 fs will show:
setuid(99)                              = 0
mkdir("dir", 0700)                      = 0
chown("dir", 4294967295, 0)             = 0
[root@ol6-x64 nfsv4]# ls -ld dir
drwx------ 2 nobody root 4096 Sep 26 13:14 dir
But with 2.6.32-431.29.2.el6.x86_64:
setuid(99)                              = 0
mkdir("dir", 0700)                      = 0
chown("dir", 4294967295, 0)             = -1 EPERM (Operation not permitted)
[root@ol6-x64 nfsv4]# ls -ld dir
drwx------ 2 nobody root 4096 Sep 26 13:19 dir

Quoted 24 lines

Quoted 1 line
So, most likely, it's a bug in the vendor kernels.
I agree, and I think it has been recorded already.
Thanks!
--
xzhou
Quoted 17 lines
So on I think that your patch may be pushed.
If there are no objections, I would like to do it on Monday.
Thanks.
Quoted 9 lines
Thanks for catching this!
--
xzhou
Quoted 3 lines
Thank you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV. Videos for Nerds. Stuff that Matters.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=160591471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list