On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 4:56 AM Oliver Sang <oliver.sang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > hi Amir, > > On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 06:32:30PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 5:27 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 02:47:42PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > > Since you joined the discussion, you have the opportunity to agree or > > > > disagree with our decision to change readahead() to ESPIPE. > > > > Judging by your citing of lseek and posix_fadvise standard, > > > > I assume that you will be on board? > > > > > > I'm fine with returning ESPIPE (it's like ENOTTY in a sense). but > > > that's not what kbuild reported: > > > > kbuild report is from v1 patch that was posted to the list > > this is not the patch (v2) that is applied to vfs.misc > > and has been in linux-next for a few days. > > > > Oliver, > > > > Can you say the failure (on socket) is reproduced on > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/vfs/vfs.git vfs.misc? > > > > I would expect the pipe test to fail for getting ESPIPE > > but according to Reuben the socket test does not fail. > > I tested on this commit: > 15d4000b93539 (brauner-vfs/vfs.misc) vfs: fix readahead(2) on block devices > > below is the test output: > > <<<test_output>>> > tst_test.c:1558: TINFO: Timeout per run is 0h 02m 30s > readahead01.c:36: TINFO: test_bad_fd -1 > readahead01.c:37: TPASS: readahead(-1, 0, getpagesize()) : EBADF (9) > readahead01.c:39: TINFO: test_bad_fd O_WRONLY > readahead01.c:45: TPASS: readahead(fd, 0, getpagesize()) : EBADF (9) > readahead01.c:54: TINFO: test_invalid_fd pipe > readahead01.c:56: TFAIL: readahead(fd[0], 0, getpagesize()) expected EINVAL: ESPIPE (29) > readahead01.c:60: TINFO: test_invalid_fd socket > readahead01.c:62: TFAIL: readahead(fd[0], 0, getpagesize()) succeeded > > Summary: > passed 2 > failed 2 > broken 0 > skipped 0 > warnings 0 > > Thank you! We had some confusion about patch of reported bug vs. current patch, but these results are matching the other reports wrt current patch. > BTW, I noticed the branch updated, now: > e9168b6800ecd (brauner-vfs/vfs.misc) vfs: fix readahead(2) on block devices > > though the patch-id are same. do you want us to test it again? > It's the same patch. no need to re-test. Thanks, Amir.
