----- Original Message -----
> The heuristic of failing the test only if not saving any io has false
> negatives with overlayfs readahead() bug, but readahead() with overlayfs
> always warns on "using less cache then expected", when actually, it is
> using no cache at all.
>
> Add another condition to fail the test if readahead did not use any
> cache at all, which always detected the overlayfs bug.
ack, explicit FAIL here looks reasonable
>
> Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> Cyril,
>
> This is a followup for the overlayfs readahead series.
> With the patches already posted, the test fails sometimes, but
> most of the times it just gets a warning.
>
> With this additional patch test fails reliably.
> Note that test only fails between these upstream commits:
> good b833a3660394 ("ovl: add ovl_fadvise()")
> bad 5b910bd615ba ("ovl: fix GPF in swapfile_activate...")
>
> I have a few more minor fixes for the v2 series, but I will hold
> them back until v1 is reviewed.
>
> Thanks,
> Amir.
>
> testcases/kernel/syscalls/readahead/readahead02.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/readahead/readahead02.c
> b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/readahead/readahead02.c
> index b497fb5db..fbcae1df8 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/readahead/readahead02.c
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/readahead/readahead02.c
> @@ -341,6 +341,8 @@ static void test_readahead(unsigned int n)
> */
> if (cached_ra * 1024 > testfile_size / 2)
> tst_res(TPASS, "using cache as expected");
> + else if (!cached_ra)
> + tst_res(TFAIL, "readahead failed to use any cache");
> else
> tst_res(TWARN, "using less cache than expected");
> } else {
> --
> 2.17.1
>
>
> --
> Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp
>
