Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] tests/virtio-9p: added readdir test

[Greg Kurz]

On Tue, 07 Jan 2020 13:25:46 +0100
Christian Schoenebeck <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Montag, 6. Januar 2020 18:22:52 CET Greg Kurz wrote:
> > > diff --git a/tests/virtio-9p-test.c b/tests/virtio-9p-test.c
> > > index 06263edb53..48c0eca292 100644
> > > --- a/tests/virtio-9p-test.c
> > > +++ b/tests/virtio-9p-test.c
> > > @@ -68,6 +68,11 @@ static void v9fs_memread(P9Req *req, void *addr, size_t
> > > len)> 
> > >      req->r_off += len;
> > >  
> > >  }
> > > 
> > > +static void v9fs_uint8_read(P9Req *req, uint8_t *val)
> > > +{
> > > +    v9fs_memread(req, val, 1);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > 
> > >  static void v9fs_uint16_write(P9Req *req, uint16_t val)
> > >  {
> > >  
> > >      uint16_t le_val = cpu_to_le16(val);
> > > 
> > > @@ -101,6 +106,12 @@ static void v9fs_uint32_read(P9Req *req, uint32_t
> > > *val)> 
> > >      le32_to_cpus(val);
> > >  
> > >  }
> > > 
> > > +static void v9fs_uint64_read(P9Req *req, uint64_t *val)
> > > +{
> > > +    v9fs_memread(req, val, 8);
> > > +    le64_to_cpus(val);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > 
> > >  /* len[2] string[len] */
> > >  static uint16_t v9fs_string_size(const char *string)
> > >  {
> > > 
> > > @@ -191,6 +202,7 @@ static const char *rmessage_name(uint8_t id)
> > > 
> > >          id == P9_RLOPEN ? "RLOPEN" :
> > >          id == P9_RWRITE ? "RWRITE" :
> > > 
> > >          id == P9_RFLUSH ? "RFLUSH" :
> > > +        id == P9_RREADDIR ? "READDIR" :
> > >          "<unknown>";
> > >  
> > >  }
> > > 
> > > @@ -348,6 +360,79 @@ static void v9fs_rwalk(P9Req *req, uint16_t *nwqid,
> > > v9fs_qid **wqid)> 
> > >      v9fs_req_free(req);
> > >  
> > >  }
> > > 
> > > +/* size[4] Treaddir tag[2] fid[4] offset[8] count[4] */
> > > +static P9Req *v9fs_treaddir(QVirtio9P *v9p, uint32_t fid, uint64_t
> > > offset,
> > > +                            uint32_t count, uint16_t tag)
> > > +{
> > > +    P9Req *req;
> > > +
> > > +    req = v9fs_req_init(v9p, 4 + 8 + 4, P9_TREADDIR, tag);
> > > +    v9fs_uint32_write(req, fid);
> > > +    v9fs_uint64_write(req, offset);
> > > +    v9fs_uint32_write(req, count);
> > > +    v9fs_req_send(req);
> > > +    return req;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +struct v9fs_dirent {
> > 
> > The QEMU coding style calls for a CamelCase typedef,
> > 
> > ie.
> > 
> > typedef struct V9fsDirent V9fsDirent;
> 
> np
> 
> > > +    v9fs_qid qid;
> > 
> > Yeah... I should have done the same when I introduced this type ;-)
> 
> So I'll probably address your sin with a separate patch then.
> 

Thanks. :)

> > > +static void fs_readdir(void *obj, void *data, QGuestAllocator *t_alloc)
> > > +{
> > > +    QVirtio9P *v9p = obj;
> > > +    alloc = t_alloc;
> > > +    char *const wnames[] = { g_strdup(QTEST_V9FS_SYNTH_READDIR_DIR) };
> > > +    uint16_t nqid;
> > > +    v9fs_qid qid;
> > > +    uint32_t count, nentries;
> > > +    struct v9fs_dirent *entries = NULL;
> > > +    P9Req *req;
> > > +
> > > +    fs_attach(v9p, NULL, t_alloc);
> > > +    req = v9fs_twalk(v9p, 0, 1, 1, wnames, 0);
> > > +    v9fs_req_wait_for_reply(req, NULL);
> > > +    v9fs_rwalk(req, &nqid, NULL);
> > > +    g_assert_cmpint(nqid, ==, 1);
> > > +
> > > +    req = v9fs_tlopen(v9p, 1, O_DIRECTORY, 0);
> > > +    v9fs_req_wait_for_reply(req, NULL);
> > > +    v9fs_rlopen(req, &qid, NULL);
> > > +
> > > +    req = v9fs_treaddir(v9p, 1, 0, P9_MAX_SIZE - P9_IOHDRSZ, 0);
> > > +    v9fs_req_wait_for_reply(req, NULL);
> > > +    v9fs_rreaddir(req, &count, &nentries, &entries);
> > > +
> > > +    /*
> > > +     * Assuming msize (P9_MAX_SIZE) is large enough so we can retrieve
> > > all
> > > +     * dir entries with only one readdir request.
> > > +     */
> > > +    g_assert_cmpint(
> > > +        nentries, ==,
> > > +        QTEST_V9FS_SYNTH_READDIR_NFILES + 2 /* "." and ".." */
> > > +    );
> > 
> > What about coming up with a version of this test that loops until
> > it could read all the entries instead of this assumption ?
> 
> Yes, I had this planned a bit later though. And not as a replacement for this 
> one, but rather as a subsequent advanced readdir test. Because it makes sense 
> to cover both cases: readdir a large amount of entries with a single request, 
> but also splitted down by several readdir requests as subsequent, separate 
> test.
> 

Works for me.

> Best regards,
> Christian Schoenebeck
> 
>