Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] xfstests: introduce 280 for SEEK_DATA/SEEK_HOLE copy check

[Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>]

On 02/07/12 01:40, Jeff Liu wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On 02/07/2012 06:30 AM, Mark Tinguely wrote:
>
> > On 02/06/12 08:30, Jeff Liu wrote:
> > > Introduce 280 for SEEK_DATA/SEEK_HOLE copy check.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jie Liu<jeff.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > ---
> > > diff --git a/src/seek_copy_tester.c b/src/seek_copy_tester.c
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 0000000..ddf683f
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/src/seek_copy_tester.c
> > > +static size_t
> > > +full_write(int fd, const void *buf, size_t count)
> > > +{
> > > +    size_t total = 0;
> > > +    const char *ptr = (const char *) buf;
> > > +
> > > +    while (count>   0) {
> > > +        ssize_t n = write(fd, ptr, count);
> > > +        if (n<   0) {
> > > +            if (errno == EINTR)
> > > +                continue;
> > Wouldn't you want to stop the write loop if interrupted?
> As this routine was called "full_write" which means it is expect to write as 
> much as it can.
> So I would keep retrying if the process was interrupted by EINTR.
> Would you please give some opinions whether this approach is not suitable in 
> this circumstance?
Maybe I was thinking wrong. I was thinking if someone had killed the 
test and the write was interrupted by the signal, then you would give up 
the write loop.
--Mark.