On 7/6/22 23:15, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:
Add missing job synchronization in the unit tests, with
explicit locks.
We are deliberately using _locked functions wrapped by a guard
instead of a normal call because the normal call will be removed
in future, as the only usage is limited to the tests.
In other words, if a function like job_pause() is/will be only used
in tests to avoid:
WITH_JOB_LOCK_GUARD(){
job_pause_locked();
}
then it is not worth keeping job_pause(), and just use the guard.
I'm not sure. Why not worth keeping simpler code in tests? But I don't insist.
Note: at this stage, job_{lock/unlock} and job lock guard macros
are *nop*.
Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eespo...@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@redhat.com>
[..]
--- a/tests/unit/test-blockjob-txn.c
+++ b/tests/unit/test-blockjob-txn.c
@@ -116,8 +116,10 @@ static void test_single_job(int expected)
job = test_block_job_start(1, true, expected, &result, txn);
job_start(&job->job);
- if (expected == -ECANCELED) {
- job_cancel(&job->job, false);
+ WITH_JOB_LOCK_GUARD() {
+ if (expected == -ECANCELED) {
+ job_cancel_locked(&job->job, false);
+ }
}
"if (expected == ..)" may be kept around LOCK_GUARD section.
while (result == -EINPROGRESS) {
@@ -160,13 +162,15 @@ static void test_pair_jobs(int expected1, int expected2)
/* Release our reference now to trigger as many nice
* use-after-free bugs as possible.
*/
- job_txn_unref(txn);
[..]
cancel_common(s);
}
+/*
+ * This test always runs in the main loop, so there is no
+ * need to protect job->status.
+ */
That made me ask:
1. Are all tests always run in main loop? If yes, why to protect status reading
in test_complete_in_standby() ?
2. Maybe, we don't need to protect anything here? Why to protect other things
if we run everything in main loop?
--
Best regards,
Vladimir
