On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 03:19 +0300, Grazvydas Ignotas wrote:
> The test checks if no duplicate d_off values are returned and that
> those values are seekable to the right inodes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Grazvydas Ignotas <notasas@xxxxxxxxx>
I have two minor comments on the C program below,
but even if you don't want to address them this
looks good.
Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>
. . .
> +#include <sys/syscall.h>
> +
> +struct linux_dirent64 {
> + uint64_t d_ino;
> + uint64_t d_off;
> + unsigned short d_reclen;
> + unsigned char d_type;
> + char d_name[0];
> +};
> +
> +#define BUF_SIZE 4096
> +#define HISTORY_LEN 1024
> +
> +static uint64_t d_off_histoty[HISTORY_LEN];
> +static uint64_t d_ino_histoty[HISTORY_LEN];
Is "histoty" intentional or a typo?
> +int
> +main(int argc, char *argv[])
> +{
> + int fd, nread;
> + char buf[BUF_SIZE];
. . .
> +
> + /* check if seek works correctly */
> + d = (struct linux_dirent64 *)buf;
> + for (i = total - 1; i >= 0; i--)
> + {
> + lret = lseek(fd, i > 0 ? d_off_histoty[i - 1] : 0, SEEK_SET);
> + if (lret == -1) {
> + perror("lseek");
> + exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
> + }
> +
> + nread = syscall(SYS_getdents64, fd, buf, BUF_SIZE);
You could just use sizeof (struct linux_dirent_64) rather than
BUF_SIZE here. I suppose it doesn't hurt but there's no real
sense in reading more than the one you're going to look at.
> + if (nread == -1) {
> + perror("getdents");
> + exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
> + }
> +
. . .
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
