[PATCH v6] tests/fcntl.c: add test for print_f_owner_ex

[Zhibin Li]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 4:23 PM, Zhibin Li <08826794brmt at gmail.com> wrote:

> *tests/fcntl.c (test_f_owner_ex_type_pid)
> (test_f_owner_ex_umove, test_f_owner_ex_printaddr)
> (test_f_owner_ex): New functions.
> (main): Use test_f_owner_ex.
> ---
>  tests/fcntl.c | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 55 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tests/fcntl.c b/tests/fcntl.c
> index 4f62ca2a..3a7d243d 100644
> --- a/tests/fcntl.c
> +++ b/tests/fcntl.c
> @@ -69,12 +69,67 @@ test_flock64(void)
>  #endif
>  }
>
> +static long
> +test_f_owner_ex_type_pid(const int cmd, const char *const cmd_name,
> +                        const int type, const char *const type_name,
> +                        const pid_t pid)
> +{
> +       TAIL_ALLOC_OBJECT_CONST_PTR(struct f_owner_ex, fo);
> +       fo->type = type;
> +       fo->pid = pid;
> +
> +       long rc = invoke_test_syscall(cmd, fo);
> +       printf("%s(0, %s, {type=%s, pid=%d}) = %s\n",
> +              TEST_SYSCALL_STR, cmd_name, type_name, pid, sprintrc(rc));
> +       return rc;
> +}
> +
>
Since this part is similar with function test_f_owner_ex_printaddr below, I
don't know
whether it's necessary to put them into just one function. But
test_f_owner_ex_printaddr
doesn't need parameters such as type or pid.

> +static void
> +test_f_owner_ex_umove(const int type, const char *const type_name, pid_t
> pid)
> +{
> +       long rc = test_f_owner_ex_type_pid(ARG_STR(F_SETOWN_EX),
> +                                          type, type_name, pid);
> +       if (!rc)
> +               test_f_owner_ex_type_pid(ARG_STR(F_GETOWN_EX),
> +                                        type, type_name, pid);
> +}
> +
> +static void
> +test_f_owner_ex_printaddr(const int cmd, const char *const cmd_name)
> +{
> +       TAIL_ALLOC_OBJECT_CONST_PTR(struct f_owner_ex, fo);
> +
> +       long rc = invoke_test_syscall(cmd, fo+1ULL);
> +       printf("%s(0, %s, %p) = %s\n",
> +              TEST_SYSCALL_STR, cmd_name, fo+1ULL, sprintrc(rc));
> +}
> +
> +static void
> +test_f_owner_ex(void)
> +{
> +       unsigned int i;
> +       unsigned int j;
> +       unsigned int k = 0;
> +       const int type[] = { F_OWNER_TID, F_OWNER_PID, F_OWNER_PGRP };
> +       const char *type_name[] = { "F_OWNER_TID", "F_OWNER_PID",
> "F_OWNER_PGRP" };
> +       const int pid[] = { 1234567890, 1298126790, 1294567890, 20, 30, 40
> };
> +
> +       for (i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
> +               for (j = 0; j < ARRAY_SIZE(type); j++) {
> +                       test_f_owner_ex_umove(type[j], type_name[j],
> pid[k++]);
> +               }
> +       }
> +       test_f_owner_ex_printaddr(ARG_STR(F_SETOWN_EX));
> +       test_f_owner_ex_printaddr(ARG_STR(F_GETOWN_EX));
>
As Eugene said, here we should use for loops when there are multiple
invocations. I wonder
is this test_f_owner_ex_printaddr supposed to use a loop? Because there are
just two
invocations, unlike test_f_owner_ex_umove, which is called for six times.
Are there any
basic rules or criteria we can refer to?

> +}
> +
>  int
>  main(void)
>  {
>         create_sample();
>         test_flock();
>         test_flock64();
> +       test_f_owner_ex();
>
>         puts("+++ exited with 0 +++");
>         return 0;
> --
> 2.14.3
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.strace.io/pipermail/strace-devel/attachments/20180416/9ecf1b5c/attachment.html>