On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 08:00:45PM +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>
> ---
> V2:
> * Adjusted comments about some members of struct rmap_test_vector
> * Fixed inline comments
> * Correctly handle error when initialising dummy device
> * Other minor cosmetic changes around comments/braces for single statement 'if'
> and structure initialization
I still found issues unfixed from v1 and some that I did not notice
before
> fs/btrfs/tests/extent-map-tests.c | 146 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 145 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/tests/extent-map-tests.c b/fs/btrfs/tests/extent-map-tests.c
> index 4a7f796c9900..4878904434af 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/tests/extent-map-tests.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/tests/extent-map-tests.c
> @@ -6,6 +6,10 @@
> #include <linux/types.h>
> #include "btrfs-tests.h"
> #include "../ctree.h"
> +#include "../volumes.h"
> +#include "../disk-io.h"
> +#include "../block-group.h"
> +
Extra newline
>
> static void free_extent_map_tree(struct extent_map_tree *em_tree)
> {
> @@ -437,11 +441,144 @@ 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;
> + /* Assume we won't have more than 5 physical stripes */
> + u64 data_stripe_phys_start[5];
> + int expected_mapped_addr;
This should be bool
> + /* Physical to logical addresses */
> + u64 mapped_logical[5];
> +};
> +
> +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);
> + /* Start at 4gb logical address */
> + em->start = SZ_4G;
> + 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) {
> + test_err("ENOMEM while allocating dummy device");
ret = -ENOMEM;
And the error message should follow the scheme of the other standard
error messages (defined in test_error)
> + goto out;
> + }
> + 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");
Error found but no exit, other selftests do that. And no capital letter
at the beginning of the string. I've added a label before the 2nd
free_extent_map.
> +
> + 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 but expected %d",
... in all strings passed to test_err
> + test->expected_mapped_addr);
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + if (out_stripe_len != BTRFS_STRIPE_LEN) {
> + test_err("Calculated stripe len doesn't match");
Here
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + if (out_ndaddrs != test->expected_mapped_addr) {
> + for (i = 0; i < out_ndaddrs; i++)
> + test_msg("Mapped %llu", logical[i]);
Here
> + test_err("Unexpected number of mapped addresses: %d", out_ndaddrs);
Here
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < out_ndaddrs; i++) {
> + if (logical[i] != test->mapped_logical[i]) {
> + test_err("Unexpected logical address mapped");
Here
> + 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.
> + */
> + .raid_type = BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID1,
> + .physical_start = SZ_64M - SZ_4M,
> + .data_stripe_size = SZ_256M,
> + .num_data_stripes = 2,
> + .num_stripes = 2,
> + .data_stripe_phys_start = {SZ_64M - SZ_4M, SZ_64M - SZ_4M + SZ_256M},
Formatting
> + .expected_mapped_addr = 1,
> + .mapped_logical= {SZ_4G + SZ_4M}
> + },
> + {
> + /* test that out of range physical addresses are ignored */
> +
> + /* SINGLE chunk type */
> + .raid_type = 0,
> + .physical_start = SZ_4G,
> + .data_stripe_size = SZ_256M,
> + .num_data_stripes = 1,
> + .num_stripes = 1,
> + .data_stripe_phys_start = {SZ_256M},
> + .expected_mapped_addr = 0,
> + .mapped_logical = {0}
> + }
> + };
>
> test_msg("running extent_map tests");
>
> @@ -474,6 +611,13 @@ int btrfs_test_extent_map(void)
> goto out;
> ret = test_case_4(fs_info, em_tree);
>
> + test_msg("Running rmap tests.");
test_msg("running rmap 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);
> --
> 2.17.1
