On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 07:59:14PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 04:39:08PM -0400, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > The dm-linear linear target passes through SEEK_HOLE/SEEK_DATA. Extend
> > the test case to check that the same holes/data are reported as for the
> > underlying file.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > tools/testing/selftests/block_seek_hole/test.py | 16 +++++++++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/block_seek_hole/test.py b/tools/testing/selftests/block_seek_hole/test.py
> > index 4f7c2d01ab3d3..6360b72aee338 100755
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/block_seek_hole/test.py
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/block_seek_hole/test.py
> > @@ -45,6 +45,20 @@ def loop_device(file_path):
> > finally:
> > run(['losetup', '-d', loop_path])
> >
> > +@contextmanager
> > +def dm_linear(file_path):
> > + file_size = os.path.getsize(file_path)
> > +
> > + with loop_device(file_path) as loop_path:
> > + dm_name = f'test-{os.getpid()}'
> > + run(['dmsetup', 'create', dm_name, '--table',
> > + f'0 {file_size // 512} linear {loop_path} 0'])
>
> Would it be worth tryiing to create the dm with two copies of
> loop_path concatenated one after the other? You'd have to do more
> work on expected output (coalescing adjacent data or holes between the
> tail of the first copy and the head of the second), but without that
> in place, I worry that you are missing logic bugs for when there is
> more than one table in the overall dm (as evidenced by my review in
> 4/9).
Yes, I agree that more tests are needed to cover transitions between
adjacent targets.
Stefan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
