Skip to contentSkip to conversation

posix_fallocate

LTP [email protected] 1 participant 3 messages Apr 23, 2014 – Apr 28, 2014 3 messages not in the archive

lore
Share & tools
lore
#1 lore raw
In reply to a message not in the archive

Hi!

Quoted 5 lines

I would like to add "posix_fallocate" test based on what we already have in syscalls/fallocate, because the behavior of "posix_fallocate" is close to what is doing fallocate by default, so most test scenarios will be the same. What is the correct way to do it, place it in open_posix_testsuite as new ones or add it to fallocate tests?

That is hard to tell.

If you care for posix_fallocate strictly POSIX conformace add it to open_posix_testsuite and write the tests accordingly to the POSIX specification.

If you care about API coverage add it to the syscalls testcases and share as much code with the fallocate testcases as possible.

Signature · 13 lines
Cyril Hrubis
[email protected]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start Your Social Network Today - Download eXo Platform
Build your Enterprise Intranet with eXo Platform Software
Java Based Open Source Intranet - Social, Extensible, Cloud Ready
Get Started Now And Turn Your Intranet Into A Collaboration Platform
http://p.sf.net/sfu/ExoPlatform
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
#3 lore raw
In reply to a message not in the archive

Hi!

Quoted 19 lines
Quoted 8 lines

That is hard to tell.

If you care for posix_fallocate strictly POSIX conformace add it to open_posix_testsuite and write the tests accordingly to the POSIX specification.

If you care about API coverage add it to the syscalls testcases and share as much code with the fallocate testcases as possible.

OK, I will add it to syscalls. What I would want is to make a wrapper, then substitute all calls of fallocate with it. And decision which function to call decided inside wrapper using command line option. So they would be called this way:

...
fallocate01 fallocate01
fallocate02 fallocate02
fallocate03 fallocate03

Quoted 4 lines

posix_fallocate01 fallocate01 -x
posix_fallocate02 fallocate02 -x
posix_fallocate03 fallocate03 -x
...

Or you can recompile the the binaries with -DUSE_POSIX_FALLOCATE and use #ifdefs to choose which do you call.

Looking at the testcases you will probable need to ifdef a few test assertions (these where mode is not 0) too.

Signature · 13 lines
Cyril Hrubis
[email protected]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE
Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos.  Get 
unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available.
Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free."
http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
#5 lore raw
In reply to a message not in the archive

Hi!

Quoted 17 lines
Quoted 17 lines
Quoted 10 lines

OK, I will add it to syscalls. What I would want is to make a wrapper, then substitute all calls of fallocate with it. And decision which function to call decided inside wrapper using command line option. So they would be called this way:

...
fallocate01 fallocate01
fallocate02 fallocate02
fallocate03 fallocate03

Quoted 4 lines

posix_fallocate01 fallocate01 -x
posix_fallocate02 fallocate02 -x
posix_fallocate03 fallocate03 -x
...

Or you can recompile the the binaries with -DUSE_POSIX_FALLOCATE and use #ifdefs to choose which do you call.

Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines

Looking at the testcases you will probable need to ifdef a few test assertions (these where mode is not 0) too.

Just in one place in fallocate01, where it tests "FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE" mode. Still it would probably be better to have a wrapper at least for posix_fallocate, e.g. to preserve the way the code checks for errors, because it returns error number and doesn't set "errno".

Ah, missed that in the manual page.

Creating wrapper that sets errno and returns -1 in case of posix_fallocate() sounds reasonably.

Signature · 13 lines
Cyril Hrubis
[email protected]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE
Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos.  Get 
unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available.
Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free."
http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list