[WIP] syscalls: Add loop device interface.

  • Open
  • quality assurance status badge
Details
2 participants
  • Danny Milosavljevic
  • Ludovic Courtès
Owner
unassigned
Submitted by
Danny Milosavljevic
Severity
normal
D
D
Danny Milosavljevic wrote on 14 Mar 2019 23:08
(address . guix-patches@gnu.org)(name . Danny Milosavljevic)(address . dannym@scratchpost.org)
20190314220823.30769-1-dannym@scratchpost.org
* guix/build/syscalls.scm (%ioctl-unsigned-long): New procedure.
(LOOP_CTL_GET_FREE): New macro.
(LOOP_SET_FD): New macro.
(LOOP_SET_STATUS64): New macro.
(LOOP_GET_STATUS64): New macro.
(lo-flags): New bits.
(lo-flags->symbols): New procedure.
(LO_NAME_SIZE): New variable.
(LO_KEY_SIZE): New variable.
(%struct-loop-info64): New C structure.
(allocate-new-loop-device): New procedure.
(set-loop-device-backing-file): New procedure.
(get-loop-device-status): New procedure.
* tests/syscalls.scm: Add test.
---
guix/build/syscalls.scm | 130 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
tests/syscalls.scm | 4 ++
2 files changed, 133 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Toggle diff (168 lines)
diff --git a/guix/build/syscalls.scm b/guix/build/syscalls.scm
index 66d63a2931..a828aa18e2 100644
--- a/guix/build/syscalls.scm
+++ b/guix/build/syscalls.scm
@@ -155,7 +155,12 @@
utmpx-address
login-type
utmpx-entries
- (read-utmpx-from-port . read-utmpx)))
+ (read-utmpx-from-port . read-utmpx)
+
+ allocate-new-loop-device
+ set-loop-device-backing-file
+ get-loop-device-status
+ set-loop-device-status))
;;; Commentary:
;;;
@@ -1237,6 +1242,10 @@ bytevector BV at INDEX."
;; The most terrible interface, live from Scheme.
(syscall->procedure int "ioctl" (list int unsigned-long '*)))
+(define %ioctl-unsigned-long
+ ;; The most terrible interface, live from Scheme.
+ (syscall->procedure int "ioctl" (list int unsigned-long unsigned-long)))
+
(define (bytes->string bytes)
"Read BYTES, a list of bytes, and return the null-terminated string decoded
from there, or #f if that would be an empty string."
@@ -1953,4 +1962,123 @@ entry."
((? bytevector? bv)
(read-utmpx bv))))
+;;; Loopback device setup.
+
+;;; /dev/loop-control
+
+(define-syntax LOOP_CTL_GET_FREE ;<uapi/linux/loop.h>
+ (identifier-syntax #x4C82))
+
+;;; /dev/loopN
+
+(define-syntax LOOP_SET_FD ;<uapi/linux/loop.h>
+ (identifier-syntax #x4C00))
+
+(define-syntax LOOP_SET_STATUS64 ;<uapi/linux/loop.h>
+ (identifier-syntax #x4C04))
+
+(define-syntax LOOP_GET_STATUS64 ;<uapi/linux/loop.h>
+ (identifier-syntax #x4C05))
+
+(define-bits lo-flags ;<uapi/linux/loop.h>
+ lo-flags->symbols
+ (define LO_FLAGS_READ_ONLY 1)
+ (define LO_FLAGS_AUTOCLEAR 4)
+ (define LO_FLAGS_PARTSCAN 8)
+ (define LO_FLAGS_DIRECT_IO 16))
+
+(define LO_NAME_SIZE 64)
+(define LO_KEY_SIZE 32)
+
+;; 'struct loop_info64' for GNU/Linux. ;<uapi/linux/loop.h>
+(define-c-struct %struct-loop-info64
+ sizeof-loop-info64
+ (lambda (lo-device lo-inode lo-rdevice lo-offset lo-sizelimit lo-number
+ lo-encrypt-type lo-encrypt-key-size lo-flags lo-file-name
+ lo-crypt-name lo-encrypt-key lo-init)
+ `((lo-device . ,lo-device)
+ (lo-inode . ,lo-inode)
+ (lo-rdevice . ,lo-rdevice)
+ (lo-offset . ,lo-offset)
+ (lo-sizelimit . ,lo-sizelimit)
+ (lo-number . ,lo-number)
+ (lo-encrypt-type . ,lo-encrypt-type)
+ (lo-encrypt-key-size . ,lo-encrypt-key-size)
+ (lo-flags . ,(lo-flags->symbols lo-flags))
+ (lo-file-name . ,(bytes->string lo-file-name))
+ (lo-crypt-name . ,(bytes->string lo-crypt-name))
+ (lo-encrypt-key . ,(bytes->string lo-encrypt-key))
+ (lo-init . ,lo-init)))
+ read-loop-info64
+ write-loop-info64!
+ (lo-device uint64) ; ioctl r/o
+ (lo-inode uint64) ; ioctl r/o
+ (lo-rdevice uint64) ; ioctl r/o
+ (lo-offset uint64)
+ (lo-sizelimit uint64) ; Bytes; 0 == max available.
+ (lo-number uint32) ; ioctl r/o
+ (lo-encrypt-type uint32)
+ (lo-encrypt-key-size uint32) ; ioctl w/o
+ (lo-flags uint32)
+ (lo-file-name (array uint8 LO_NAME_SIZE))
+ (lo-crypt-name (array uint8 LO_NAME_SIZE))
+ (lo-encrypt-key (array uint8 LO_KEY_SIZE))
+ (lo-init (array uint64 2)))
+
+(define (allocate-new-loop-device control-file)
+ "Allocates a new loop device and returns an FD for it.
+CONTROL-FILE should be an open file \"/dev/loop-control\".
+The result is a number to be appended to the name \"/dev/loop\" in order to
+find the loop device."
+ (let-values (((ret err)
+ (%ioctl (fileno control-file)
+ LOOP_CTL_GET_FREE %null-pointer)))
+ (cond
+ ((>= ret 0)
+ (open-io-file (string-append "/dev/loop" (number->string ret))))
+ (else
+ (throw 'system-error "ioctl" "~A"
+ (list (strerror err))
+ (list err))))))
+
+(define (set-loop-device-backing-file loop-file backing-file)
+ "Sets up the loop device LOOP-FILE for BACKING-FILE."
+ (let-values (((ret err)
+ (%ioctl-unsigned-long (fileno loop-file) LOOP_SET_FD
+ (fileno backing-file))))
+ (cond
+ ((>= ret 0)
+ #t)
+ (else
+ (throw 'system-error "ioctl" "~A"
+ (list (strerror err))
+ (list err))))))
+
+(define (get-loop-device-status loop-file)
+ (let*-values (((buf) (make-bytevector sizeof-loop-info64))
+ ((ret err)
+ (%ioctl (fileno loop-file)
+ LOOP_GET_STATUS64 (bytevector->pointer buf))))
+ (cond
+ ((= ret 0)
+ (read-loop-info64 buf))
+ (else
+ (throw 'system-error "ioctl" "~A"
+ (list (strerror err))
+ (list err))))))
+
+(define (set-loop-device-status loop-file status)
+ (let ((buf (make-bytevector sizeof-loop-info64)))
+ (apply write-loop-info64! buf status) ; TODO: Be more user-friendly.
+ (let-values (((ret err) (%ioctl (fileno loop-file)
+ LOOP_SET_STATUS64
+ (bytevector->pointer buf))))
+ (cond
+ ((= ret 0)
+ #t)
+ (else
+ (throw 'system-error "ioctl" "~A"
+ (list (strerror err))
+ (list err)))))))
+
;;; syscalls.scm ends here
diff --git a/tests/syscalls.scm b/tests/syscalls.scm
index 3e267c9f01..57b63421b0 100644
--- a/tests/syscalls.scm
+++ b/tests/syscalls.scm
@@ -564,6 +564,10 @@
(let ((result (call-with-input-file "/var/run/utmpx" read-utmpx)))
(or (utmpx? result) (eof-object? result))))
+(let ((loop-device (allocate-new-loop-device (open-io-file "/dev/loop-control"))))
+ (set-loop-device-backing-file loop-device (open-input-file "tests/syscalls.scm"))
+ (set-loop-device-status loop-device (get-loop-device-status loop-device)))
+
(test-end)
(false-if-exception (delete-file temp-file))
D
D
Danny Milosavljevic wrote on 15 Mar 2019 17:13
(address . 34863@debbugs.gnu.org)
20190315171306.777c88bd@scratchpost.org
Toggle quote (4 lines)
> +(define (set-loop-device-status loop-file status)
> + (let ((buf (make-bytevector sizeof-loop-info64)))
> + (apply write-loop-info64! buf status) ; TODO: Be more user-friendly.

I don't know how instantiate a C structure given an assoc list. Help?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEds7GsXJ0tGXALbPZ5xo1VCwwuqUFAlyLzxIACgkQ5xo1VCww
uqU0Cwf9FNKmRRo1mwrFNNeUsgDkA9AqfMrBWwWBdQnF3QRNtfmycGGV9QT2ffrS
NIFrwXAZs+gwVRUpLgJOuL6VrN6YcSZkAC7yF69CgetMPJ1swa3+rzcP0SyCFEE4
tX23hFXy0nGEVZJYf2utPFj2/4dr/eUxANZD0UDokMd8RNZDkCbiLlnSx8Nigirh
1jb7UrlSEAxeFAGXUUzrezt8St0iA4fgSL3flHfeglbbdpihvIS91v6hnQtnBHML
YZMhc2tzU1oHMRzJTDoh/mreBbzjYVpaE4NIDEhHD10dUxXoYKWRxZj2vVjvEKj0
L7N7jrMKSZCeGt6QizjilEZGLx3juw==
=C+jG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 16 Mar 2019 11:18
Re: [bug#34863] [WIP] syscalls: Add loop device interface.
(name . Danny Milosavljevic)(address . dannym@scratchpost.org)(address . 34863@debbugs.gnu.org)
877ecz15sr.fsf@gnu.org
Hi!

Danny Milosavljevic <dannym@scratchpost.org> skribis:

Toggle quote (6 lines)
>> +(define (set-loop-device-status loop-file status)
>> + (let ((buf (make-bytevector sizeof-loop-info64)))
>> + (apply write-loop-info64! buf status) ; TODO: Be more user-friendly.
>
> I don't know how instantiate a C structure given an assoc list. Help?

You have to extract the fields from STATUS and then pass them in the
right order to ‘write-loop-info64!’:

(let-syntax ((field (syntax-rules ()
((_ field) (assoc-ref status 'field)))))
(write-loop-info64! buf (field lo-device) (field lo-inode)
(field lo-rdevice) …))

However, given the number of fields, you might want to define a Scheme
record type, as is done for ‘%statfs’ and <file-system>.

HTH!

Ludo’.
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 16 Mar 2019 11:29
(name . Danny Milosavljevic)(address . dannym@scratchpost.org)(address . 34863@debbugs.gnu.org)
87k1gzyuwy.fsf@gnu.org
Hallo!

Danny Milosavljevic <dannym@scratchpost.org> skribis:

Toggle quote (15 lines)
> * guix/build/syscalls.scm (%ioctl-unsigned-long): New procedure.
> (LOOP_CTL_GET_FREE): New macro.
> (LOOP_SET_FD): New macro.
> (LOOP_SET_STATUS64): New macro.
> (LOOP_GET_STATUS64): New macro.
> (lo-flags): New bits.
> (lo-flags->symbols): New procedure.
> (LO_NAME_SIZE): New variable.
> (LO_KEY_SIZE): New variable.
> (%struct-loop-info64): New C structure.
> (allocate-new-loop-device): New procedure.
> (set-loop-device-backing-file): New procedure.
> (get-loop-device-status): New procedure.
> * tests/syscalls.scm: Add test.

What will be the use for this? I prefer to make sure we only add code
that is actually going to be used. :-)

Toggle quote (8 lines)
> +(define-c-struct %struct-loop-info64
> + sizeof-loop-info64
> + (lambda (lo-device lo-inode lo-rdevice lo-offset lo-sizelimit lo-number
> + lo-encrypt-type lo-encrypt-key-size lo-flags lo-file-name
> + lo-crypt-name lo-encrypt-key lo-init)
> + `((lo-device . ,lo-device)
> + (lo-inode . ,lo-inode)

Like I wrote, a record may be more appropriate than an alist here.
Also, no need to repeat ‘lo-’ in the parameter names.

Toggle quote (4 lines)
> +(define (allocate-new-loop-device control-file)
> + "Allocates a new loop device and returns an FD for it.
> +CONTROL-FILE should be an open file \"/dev/loop-control\".

Nitpick: s/an FD/a file descriptor/
s/an open file/an open port for/

Toggle quote (2 lines)
> + (open-io-file (string-append "/dev/loop" (number->string ret))))

I didn’t know about ‘open-io-file’ and indeed, it’s undocumented. So
I’d suggest using ‘open-file’ instead to be on the safe side.

Toggle quote (3 lines)
> +(define (set-loop-device-backing-file loop-file backing-file)
> + "Sets up the loop device LOOP-FILE for BACKING-FILE."

Maybe the docstring should be: “Set BACKING-FILE, a port, as the backing
file of LOOP-FILE, an open port to a loopback device.”?

Toggle quote (4 lines)
> + (let-values (((ret err)
> + (%ioctl-unsigned-long (fileno loop-file) LOOP_SET_FD
> + (fileno backing-file))))

Note that BACKING-FILE, the port, can be closed when it’s GC’d, which as
a side effect would close its associated file descriptor. Is this OK or
does the FD have to remain open for the lifetime of the loopback device?

In the latter case you’d have to use ‘port->fdes’ instead of ‘fileno’ to
increase the “revealed count” of the port.

Toggle quote (2 lines)
> +(define (get-loop-device-status loop-file)

Please add a docstring. Also I’d remove ‘get-’.

Toggle quote (2 lines)
> +(define (set-loop-device-status loop-file status)

Docstring! :-)

Toggle quote (10 lines)
> --- a/tests/syscalls.scm
> +++ b/tests/syscalls.scm
> @@ -564,6 +564,10 @@
> (let ((result (call-with-input-file "/var/run/utmpx" read-utmpx)))
> (or (utmpx? result) (eof-object? result))))
>
> +(let ((loop-device (allocate-new-loop-device (open-io-file "/dev/loop-control"))))
> + (set-loop-device-backing-file loop-device (open-input-file "tests/syscalls.scm"))
> + (set-loop-device-status loop-device (get-loop-device-status loop-device)))

You’re missing a ‘test-assert’ or similar. Also, isn’t ‘loop-device’ a
number? Then the ‘set-loop-device-*’ calls fail with wrong-type-arg,
no?

Thank you!

Ludo’.
D
D
Danny Milosavljevic wrote on 16 Mar 2019 12:17
(name . Ludovic Courtès)(address . ludo@gnu.org)(address . 34863@debbugs.gnu.org)
20190316121709.27c979dc@scratchpost.org
Hi Ludo :)

On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 11:29:17 +0100
Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:

Toggle quote (3 lines)
> What will be the use for this? I prefer to make sure we only add code
> that is actually going to be used. :-)

See "boot multiple Gnu/Linux Distributions from one USB key" on the guix-devel
list. This would make it possible to loop-mount stuff at boot.

Toggle quote (3 lines)
> Like I wrote, a record may be more appropriate than an alist here.
> Also, no need to repeat ‘lo-’ in the parameter names.

Sure.

Toggle quote (12 lines)
> > +(define (allocate-new-loop-device control-file)
> > + "Allocates a new loop device and returns an FD for it.
> > +CONTROL-FILE should be an open file \"/dev/loop-control\".
>
> Nitpick: s/an FD/a file descriptor/
> s/an open file/an open port for/
>
> > + (open-io-file (string-append "/dev/loop" (number->string ret))))
>
> I didn’t know about ‘open-io-file’ and indeed, it’s undocumented. So
> I’d suggest using ‘open-file’ instead to be on the safe side.

Do you mean

open-file ... "r+"

?

Toggle quote (4 lines)
>Note that BACKING-FILE, the port, can be closed when it’s GC’d, which as
>a side effect would close its associated file descriptor. Is this OK or
>does the FD have to remain open for the lifetime of the loopback device?

I don't know, but guess it's okay for it to be closed again (the
"losetup" process doesn't keep running for long either and the loop device
is fine).

Toggle quote (6 lines)
> > +(let ((loop-device (allocate-new-loop-device (open-io-file "/dev/loop-control"))))
> > + (set-loop-device-backing-file loop-device (open-input-file "tests/syscalls.scm"))
> > + (set-loop-device-status loop-device (get-loop-device-status loop-device)))
>
> You’re missing a ‘test-assert’ or similar.

What would I be asserting? I found no function to test whether an
exception was raised or not (or to just assert that no exception was
raised). So I resorted to that.

Toggle quote (4 lines)
>Also, isn’t ‘loop-device’ a
> number? Then the ‘set-loop-device-*’ calls fail with wrong-type-arg,
> no?

It's actually a port now and the comment in allocate-new-loop-device is
outdated.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEds7GsXJ0tGXALbPZ5xo1VCwwuqUFAlyM2zUACgkQ5xo1VCww
uqW1wAgAgdsYDShzoJ7nHwh/SnYeUgLlgC3/Ncy1I6tlf02HnL52yA/QPwDxGBzX
tLyEpXlWB98s/NaD0xeCa+7skSXlLAZ5T3QWlQH7QA4vqVsDGUO2gh+pJYCoNasp
CHqbSqDlq6dNFYAz1n4NFd3ANyhbUD3wSbO9U6Jk/bWcjY5l7Tn6vqS5q8XV/c+d
/qXTMD+jqHPMU4hHEdGPW+mQB2WneGtmcWetn82/J82RHJpRP2ETQZi7monAVPVx
ZciT6wWv6k0dEltE2Tvu8tfy8tFhNnpWmfJjfHBqyzAm5/tUKiKJiQ3cpAB17JfU
ZPkfbwnWsJ3yei2whhCvrOdxeeh7pg==
=VhcT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 18 Mar 2019 09:42
(name . Danny Milosavljevic)(address . dannym@scratchpost.org)(address . 34863@debbugs.gnu.org)
87wokwshdv.fsf@gnu.org
Hello,

Danny Milosavljevic <dannym@scratchpost.org> skribis:

Toggle quote (9 lines)
> On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 11:29:17 +0100
> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> What will be the use for this? I prefer to make sure we only add code
>> that is actually going to be used. :-)
>
> See "boot multiple Gnu/Linux Distributions from one USB key" on the guix-devel
> list. This would make it possible to loop-mount stuff at boot.

Oh OK (too much mail!).

Toggle quote (11 lines)
>> > + (open-io-file (string-append "/dev/loop" (number->string ret))))
>>
>> I didn’t know about ‘open-io-file’ and indeed, it’s undocumented. So
>> I’d suggest using ‘open-file’ instead to be on the safe side.
>
> Do you mean
>
> open-file ... "r+"
>
> ?

Exactly.

Toggle quote (8 lines)
>>Note that BACKING-FILE, the port, can be closed when it’s GC’d, which as
>>a side effect would close its associated file descriptor. Is this OK or
>>does the FD have to remain open for the lifetime of the loopback device?
>
> I don't know, but guess it's okay for it to be closed again (the
> "losetup" process doesn't keep running for long either and the loop device
> is fine).

It’d be good to double-check. :-)

Toggle quote (10 lines)
>> > +(let ((loop-device (allocate-new-loop-device (open-io-file "/dev/loop-control"))))
>> > + (set-loop-device-backing-file loop-device (open-input-file "tests/syscalls.scm"))
>> > + (set-loop-device-status loop-device (get-loop-device-status loop-device)))
>>
>> You’re missing a ‘test-assert’ or similar.
>
> What would I be asserting? I found no function to test whether an
> exception was raised or not (or to just assert that no exception was
> raised). So I resorted to that.

Tests always need to be enclosed in a ‘test-XYZ’ form. Otherwise it’s
code that’s evaluated as the top level and that’s not listed in the test
log.

So in this case, to check for a 'system-error exception, you could do, say:

(test-equal "foo"
ENOENT
(catch 'system-error
(lambda () … #f)
(lambda args
(system-error-errno args))))

There are examples of that in ‘tests/syscalls.scm’.

HTH!

Ludo’.
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 10 Apr 2019 16:56
(name . Danny Milosavljevic)(address . dannym@scratchpost.org)(address . 34863@debbugs.gnu.org)
87mukxdi4c.fsf@gnu.org
Ping! :-)

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> skribis:

Toggle quote (66 lines)
> Hello,
>
> Danny Milosavljevic <dannym@scratchpost.org> skribis:
>
>> On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 11:29:17 +0100
>> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>>> What will be the use for this? I prefer to make sure we only add code
>>> that is actually going to be used. :-)
>>
>> See "boot multiple Gnu/Linux Distributions from one USB key" on the guix-devel
>> list. This would make it possible to loop-mount stuff at boot.
>
> Oh OK (too much mail!).
>
>>> > + (open-io-file (string-append "/dev/loop" (number->string ret))))
>>>
>>> I didn’t know about ‘open-io-file’ and indeed, it’s undocumented. So
>>> I’d suggest using ‘open-file’ instead to be on the safe side.
>>
>> Do you mean
>>
>> open-file ... "r+"
>>
>> ?
>
> Exactly.
>
>>>Note that BACKING-FILE, the port, can be closed when it’s GC’d, which as
>>>a side effect would close its associated file descriptor. Is this OK or
>>>does the FD have to remain open for the lifetime of the loopback device?
>>
>> I don't know, but guess it's okay for it to be closed again (the
>> "losetup" process doesn't keep running for long either and the loop device
>> is fine).
>
> It’d be good to double-check. :-)
>
>>> > +(let ((loop-device (allocate-new-loop-device (open-io-file "/dev/loop-control"))))
>>> > + (set-loop-device-backing-file loop-device (open-input-file "tests/syscalls.scm"))
>>> > + (set-loop-device-status loop-device (get-loop-device-status loop-device)))
>>>
>>> You’re missing a ‘test-assert’ or similar.
>>
>> What would I be asserting? I found no function to test whether an
>> exception was raised or not (or to just assert that no exception was
>> raised). So I resorted to that.
>
> Tests always need to be enclosed in a ‘test-XYZ’ form. Otherwise it’s
> code that’s evaluated as the top level and that’s not listed in the test
> log.
>
> So in this case, to check for a 'system-error exception, you could do, say:
>
> (test-equal "foo"
> ENOENT
> (catch 'system-error
> (lambda () … #f)
> (lambda args
> (system-error-errno args))))
>
> There are examples of that in ‘tests/syscalls.scm’.
>
> HTH!
>
> Ludo’.
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 21 May 2019 16:51
(name . Danny Milosavljevic)(address . dannym@scratchpost.org)(address . 34863@debbugs.gnu.org)
87v9y3zwr9.fsf@gnu.org
Ping! :-)

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> skribis:

Toggle quote (66 lines)
> Hello,
>
> Danny Milosavljevic <dannym@scratchpost.org> skribis:
>
>> On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 11:29:17 +0100
>> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>>> What will be the use for this? I prefer to make sure we only add code
>>> that is actually going to be used. :-)
>>
>> See "boot multiple Gnu/Linux Distributions from one USB key" on the guix-devel
>> list. This would make it possible to loop-mount stuff at boot.
>
> Oh OK (too much mail!).
>
>>> > + (open-io-file (string-append "/dev/loop" (number->string ret))))
>>>
>>> I didn’t know about ‘open-io-file’ and indeed, it’s undocumented. So
>>> I’d suggest using ‘open-file’ instead to be on the safe side.
>>
>> Do you mean
>>
>> open-file ... "r+"
>>
>> ?
>
> Exactly.
>
>>>Note that BACKING-FILE, the port, can be closed when it’s GC’d, which as
>>>a side effect would close its associated file descriptor. Is this OK or
>>>does the FD have to remain open for the lifetime of the loopback device?
>>
>> I don't know, but guess it's okay for it to be closed again (the
>> "losetup" process doesn't keep running for long either and the loop device
>> is fine).
>
> It’d be good to double-check. :-)
>
>>> > +(let ((loop-device (allocate-new-loop-device (open-io-file "/dev/loop-control"))))
>>> > + (set-loop-device-backing-file loop-device (open-input-file "tests/syscalls.scm"))
>>> > + (set-loop-device-status loop-device (get-loop-device-status loop-device)))
>>>
>>> You’re missing a ‘test-assert’ or similar.
>>
>> What would I be asserting? I found no function to test whether an
>> exception was raised or not (or to just assert that no exception was
>> raised). So I resorted to that.
>
> Tests always need to be enclosed in a ‘test-XYZ’ form. Otherwise it’s
> code that’s evaluated as the top level and that’s not listed in the test
> log.
>
> So in this case, to check for a 'system-error exception, you could do, say:
>
> (test-equal "foo"
> ENOENT
> (catch 'system-error
> (lambda () … #f)
> (lambda args
> (system-error-errno args))))
>
> There are examples of that in ‘tests/syscalls.scm’.
>
> HTH!
>
> Ludo’.
?
Your comment

Commenting via the web interface is currently disabled.

To comment on this conversation send an email to 34863@debbugs.gnu.org

To respond to this issue using the mumi CLI, first switch to it
mumi current 34863
Then, you may apply the latest patchset in this issue (with sign off)
mumi am -- -s
Or, compose a reply to this issue
mumi compose
Or, send patches to this issue
mumi send-email *.patch