On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 02:05:52PM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> This is enough to exercise out of boundary address exclusion as well as
> address matching.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/btrfs/tests/extent-map-tests.c | 128 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 127 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/tests/extent-map-tests.c b/fs/btrfs/tests/extent-map-tests.c
> index 4a7f796c9900..e6a6417e87d2 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/tests/extent-map-tests.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/tests/extent-map-tests.c
> @@ -6,6 +6,12 @@
> #include <linux/types.h>
> #include "btrfs-tests.h"
> #include "../ctree.h"
> +#include "../volumes.h"
> +#include "../disk-io.h"
> +
> +extern int btrfs_rmap_block(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 chunk_start,
> + u64 physical, u64 **logical, int *naddrs,
> + int *stripe_len);
>
> static void free_extent_map_tree(struct extent_map_tree *em_tree)
> {
> @@ -437,11 +443,125 @@ static int test_case_4(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
> return ret;
> }
>
> +struct rmap_test_vector {
> + u64 raid_type;
> + u64 physical_start;
> + u64 data_stripe_size;
> + u64 num_data_stripes;
> + u64 num_stripes;
> + u64 data_stripe_phys_start[5]; /* Hacky, but convenient */
Please put the comment on own line and explain what is hacky here.
> + int expected_mapped_addr; /* number of expected mapped addresses */
> + u64 mapped_logical[5]; /* mapped addresses */
The comments do not say more than the names, they should be dropped or
expanded.
> +};
> +
> +static int test_rmap_block(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
> + struct rmap_test_vector *test)
> +{
> + struct extent_map *em;
> + struct map_lookup *map = NULL;
> + u64 *logical;
> + int i, out_ndaddrs, out_stripe_len;
> + int ret = -EINVAL;
> +
> + em = alloc_extent_map();
> + if (!em) {
> + test_std_err(TEST_ALLOC_EXTENT_MAP);
> + return -ENOMEM;
> + }
> +
> + map = kmalloc(map_lookup_size(test->num_stripes), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!map) {
> + kfree(em);
> + test_std_err(TEST_ALLOC_EXTENT_MAP);
> + return -ENOMEM;
> + }
> +
> + set_bit(EXTENT_FLAG_FS_MAPPING, &em->flags);
> + em->start = SZ_4G; /* Start at 4gb logical address */
Please avoid the in-line comments.
> + em->len = test->data_stripe_size * test->num_data_stripes;
> + em->block_len = em->len;
> + em->orig_block_len = test->data_stripe_size;
> + em->map_lookup = map;
> +
> + map->num_stripes = test->num_stripes;
> + map->stripe_len = BTRFS_STRIPE_LEN;
> + map->type = test->raid_type;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < map->num_stripes; i++)
> + {
> + struct btrfs_device *dev = btrfs_alloc_dummy_device(fs_info);
> + if (!dev)
> + BUG();
No way to handle the error?
> + map->stripes[i].dev = dev;
> + map->stripes[i].physical = test->data_stripe_phys_start[i];
> + }
> +
> + write_lock(&fs_info->mapping_tree.lock);
> + ret = add_extent_mapping(&fs_info->mapping_tree, em, 0);
> + write_unlock(&fs_info->mapping_tree.lock);
> + if (ret) {
> + test_err("Error adding block group mapping to mapping tree");
> + }
No need for { }, no capital letter at the beginnin of the string.
> +
> + ret = btrfs_rmap_block(fs_info, em->start, btrfs_sb_offset(1),
> + &logical, &out_ndaddrs, &out_stripe_len);
> + if (ret || (out_ndaddrs == 0 && test->expected_mapped_addr)) {
> + test_err("Didn't rmap anything");
That's a good example of a useless error message
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + if (out_stripe_len != BTRFS_STRIPE_LEN) {
> + test_err("Calculated stripe len doesn't match");
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + if (out_ndaddrs != test->expected_mapped_addr) {
> + for (i = 0; i < out_ndaddrs; i++)
> + test_msg("Mapped %llu", logical[i]);
> + test_err("Unexpected number of mapped addresses: %d\n", out_ndaddrs);
No "\n"
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < out_ndaddrs; i++) {
> + if (logical[i] != test->mapped_logical[i]) {
> + test_err("Unexpected logical address mapped");
> + goto out;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + ret = 0;
> +out:
> + write_lock(&fs_info->mapping_tree.lock);
> + remove_extent_mapping(&fs_info->mapping_tree, em);
> + write_unlock(&fs_info->mapping_tree.lock);
> + /* For us */
> + free_extent_map(em);
> + /* For the tree */
> + free_extent_map(em);
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> int btrfs_test_extent_map(void)
> {
> struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = NULL;
> struct extent_map_tree *em_tree;
> - int ret = 0;
> + int ret = 0, i;
> + struct rmap_test_vector rmap_tests[] = {
> + {
> + /* Tests a chunk with 2 data stripes one of which
> + * interesects the physical address of the super block
> + * is correctly recognised.
> + */
Comment style from net/
> + BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID1, SZ_64M - SZ_4M, SZ_256M, 2, 2,
> + {SZ_64M - SZ_4M, SZ_64M - SZ_4M + SZ_256M}, 1,
> + {SZ_4G + SZ_4M}
> + },
> + {
> + /* test that out of range physical addresses are ignored */
> + 0 /* SINGLE chunk type */, SZ_4G, SZ_256M, 1, 1,
> + {SZ_256M}, 0, {0}
> + }
Looking at the number of values it's hard to say what's being
initialized, please convert it to the designated initializers.
> + };
>
> test_msg("running extent_map tests");
>
> @@ -474,6 +594,12 @@ int btrfs_test_extent_map(void)
> goto out;
> ret = test_case_4(fs_info, em_tree);
Maybe put a test_msg("running rmap tests") here so it's clear that any
following error message belongs to rmap anot not just extent_map tests.
>
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(rmap_tests); i++) {
> + ret = test_rmap_block(fs_info, &rmap_tests[i]);
> + if (ret)
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> out:
> kfree(em_tree);
> btrfs_free_dummy_fs_info(fs_info);
