On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 10:20:49PM +0800, kaixuxia wrote:
> Support the renameat2(NOREPLACE and WHITEOUT) syscall in fsstress.
>
> Signed-off-by: kaixuxia <kaixuxia@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> ltp/fsstress.c | 104 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 89 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/ltp/fsstress.c b/ltp/fsstress.c
> index 95285f1..5059639 100644
> --- a/ltp/fsstress.c
> +++ b/ltp/fsstress.c
...
> @@ -4272,16 +4323,21 @@ rename_f(int opno, long r)
> if (flp - flist == FT_DIR)
> fix_parent(oldid, id);
>
> - del_from_flist(flp - flist, fep - flp->fents);
> - add_to_flist(flp - flist, id, parid, xattr_counter);
> + if (mode == RENAME_WHITEOUT)
> + add_to_flist(flp - flist, id, parid, xattr_counter);
Hmm, so we've added a new devnode for the target and a whiteout was
added in its place. What about the xattr_count of the original devnode?
I wonder if we should reset that to zero. Other than that the rest looks
fine to me.
Brian
> + else {
> + del_from_flist(flp - flist, fep - flp->fents);
> + add_to_flist(flp - flist, id, parid, xattr_counter);
> + }
> }
> if (v) {
> - printf("%d/%d: rename %s to %s %d\n", procid, opno, f.path,
> + printf("%d/%d: rename(%s) %s to %s %d\n", procid,
> + opno, translate_renameat2_flags(mode), f.path,
> newf.path, e);
> if (e == 0) {
> - printf("%d/%d: rename del entry: id=%d,parent=%d\n",
> + printf("%d/%d: rename source entry: id=%d,parent=%d\n",
> procid, opno, oldid, oldparid);
> - printf("%d/%d: rename add entry: id=%d,parent=%d\n",
> + printf("%d/%d: rename target entry: id=%d,parent=%d\n",
> procid, opno, id, parid);
> }
> }
> @@ -4290,6 +4346,24 @@ rename_f(int opno, long r)
> }
>
> void
> +rename_f(int opno, long r)
> +{
> + do_renameat2(opno, r, 0);
> +}
> +
> +void
> +rnoreplace_f(int opno, long r)
> +{
> + do_renameat2(opno, r, RENAME_NOREPLACE);
> +}
> +
> +void
> +rwhiteout_f(int opno, long r)
> +{
> + do_renameat2(opno, r, RENAME_WHITEOUT);
> +}
> +
> +void
> resvsp_f(int opno, long r)
> {
> int e;
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>
